Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

D-day for A-day. By Dan Martin

by
6th Apr 2006
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

As new rules aimed at encouraging more people to save for their retirement come into force today, research has claimed only the well-off will actually benefit.

Dubbed A-day, the changes mark the biggest shake-up to pensions rules for 50 years.

The eight tax regimes which previously governed pensions have been scrapped in favour of just one, with the complex limits on how much people can save each year also abolished.

The pensions industry claims the rules will persuade more people currently with limited savings to put more money aside for their old age but a report by Datamonitor claims the rules will actually widen the gap between rich and poor pensioners.

It said that wealthy customers are best positioned to take advantage of the liberated market that these changes create because they are more likely to utilise the greater freedom that simplification of the system allows.

Datamonitor predicted that a polarization of personal pension products, going towards either Self Invested Personal Pensions (SIPPs) or low-cost pensions.

SIPPS will benefit most from the post A-Day changes, it said, due to new high contribution limits, increased range of investments and wider choice of retirement benefits. Datamonitor forecast that new business premiums for SIPPs to grow from £207m in 2005 to £516m by 2010, gradually replacing personal pensions.

"A-day does not address the problem of lack of demand for pensions in the market. The issue needs to be tackled urgently to increase uptake of voluntary pensions going forward," said Annabel Gorringe, financial services analyst at Datamonitor.

"Unless the government introduces a radical system, similar to the National Pension Savings Scheme, as recommended by the Pensions Commission's report, the savings gap in the UK will keep on growing."

Separate research suggests the employers have struggled to adapt to the new rules.

According to Prudential, more than 1,000 firms have not completed changes in time.

Dave Harris, corporate pensions director at Prudential, said: "There has been some confusion among employers about exactly what the A-Day reforms will mean and as a result some of them have been unable to explain these to their workers.

"Sadly, staff will be left confused and unsure of how their company entitlements will change."

The main A-day changes:

People can invest up to 100% of their earnings in any tax year ' up to a limit of £215,000 ' rising annually to £255,000 in April 2010 - and receive tax relief at their highest marginal rate.

Everyone can now be a member of company and personal pension schemes at the same time with some being given the right to draw their pension and carry on working.

Restrictions on the type of pensions on which a tax-free lump sum has been lifted, meaning everyone should be able to claim up to 25% of their pension fund in this way.

Rules forcing people to use their pension fund to buy an annuity by the time they are 75 years old has also being scrapped, with people instead able to opt for an Alternative Secured Pension, which operates as a form of income drawdown.

However, the minimum age at which pensions can be drawn will be gradually raised from 50 to 55 by 2010.

Tags:

Replies (2)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By martinfoley07
10th Apr 2006 13:14

... why HR relief at all?
At last it is just about starting to be debated as to why there is HR relief for pensions savings at all.

I am sure there must be some macro and / or micro economic reasons, but I have not yet heard them clearly espoused. (or is the reasoning purely political? ie votes). Perhaps someone can assist me here by advancing the economic case.

The whole policy point of tax relief on pensions savings, and consequent restrictions as to how they are used, is surely to encourage, incentivise and assist folk to save for their non-working lives.

Furthermore it is very hard, if not impossible, to save out of post-tax income when earning £30,000 to £40,000 (let alone less) if you have a family and mortgage.

Lastly, it seems "fair" (OK, that's political, not economic) that tax should not be paid on money being put by for retirement income which will eventually be taxed.

But do the same considerations apply to HR tax relief? Arguably might be "fair" (ie I am putting money out of my spending pot so not fair it goes in taxed at say extra 18%) but Govt policy point is not to help folk get pensions of £75k (say 5% on £1.5million)but some far more modest figure.

Would the withdrawal of HR relief substantially skew the savings / expenditure plans of folk earning over £40,000? Perhaps it is deemed it would. In which case, it is presumably argued that these folk would spend rather than save?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ringi
10th Apr 2006 15:06

Would a flat rate of rebate be more fair.
-> "At last it is just about starting to be debated as to why there is HR relief for pensions savings at all."

I tend to agree that having HR relief for pension saving is a bit questionable. The HR relief also means that a lot of HR tax payers have to fill in a tax from to reclaim the tax; this is additional work for HMRC and the tax player.

What about having a flag rate of rebate, that is not related to the person’s marginal tax rate. A government rebate of 50% of the payment into the pension would seem about right; it would give a BIG incentive to lower rate tax payers. It would also be nice and simple, and remove the need to have a page on the tax return for pension contributions.

I also find it unfair that a person that claimed UK tax rebate on all the payments into there pension and retire to a country that they don’t have to pay any tax on the pension income. I think ALL payouts from UK pensions should be taxed at UK tax rate wherever the person if living in the world.

Thanks (0)