Obs: 60 per cent of earners are throwing money away by saving for retirement

'Stealth tax' on pensions

Thanks to means testing, 60 per cent of earners are throwing money away by saving for retirement Neasa MacErlean and Maria Scott

Sunday September 26, 2004 The Observer

Millions of people may receive only minimal benefits from their private pensions because of the government's state pension regime, according to experts.

On the eve of the Labour conference, calculations provided to The Observer have convinced pensions experts and charities for the elderly that the government's means-tested pension system, designed by Gordon Brown, is eroding the value of saving for retirement.

Christine Farnish, chief executive of the National Association of Pension Funds, said company pension schemes were already starting to question the value of signing up lower income workers to their schemes. The scheme managers feared workers might be wasting their money.

'It is [also] impacting on insurance companies. They don't touch businesses where there are people on low incomes. It is partly economics and partly because of the risk that someone will say in 20 years' time that they were mis-selling.'

The problem arises from the way small incomes are treated under the state system. Means testing will top up the basic state pension, which is just £79.60 a week for a single person. Last year, the government introduced a new form of pension means-testing offering extra state assistance, beyond that paid to people with no private savings to those with modest savings. But experts believe the policy is backfiring. This is because the extra income may be minimal and the state's top-up benefit is withdrawn on a sliding scale of between 40 and 100 per cent. This is equivalent to taxing pensioners' savings at those rates.

To achieve a private pension income that is free of all means testing, savers today would have to retire with a pension fund of at least £75,000. The average fund is worth only £24,000.

According to projections for The Observer by actuaries Mercer, someone in their early 20s would need to start saving at a rate of £280 a month to build a fund big enough to escape means-testing. Alison O'Connell, director of the pensions think tank the Pensions Policy Institute, said: 'It is a real barrier to saving.'

Mervyn Kohler, of charity Help the Aged, said: 'If you are not in the top 40 per cent of earnings, you are probably wasting your time putting your money into pensions savings if present policies continue.'

Means-testing has been expanded dramatically under Gordon Brown, who sees it as the best way to target state resources at the most needy. But a succession of organisations, from the Confederation of British Industry to the two main opposition parties believe that means-testing is threatening to undermine the entire pension system by discouraging private saving and increasing the cost of state assistance for the elderly.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has already calculated that more than

80 per cent of pensioners will be receiving means-tested pension payments by 2025.

O'Connell said that it was virtually impossible for financial advisers to categorically recommend private pension saving.

'They can't unambiguously say "save in a pension, it will be good for you",' he said.

formatting link

Reply to
Sufaud
Loading thread data ...

snip>>>

Its a strange paradox that we/government cannot afford to pay to keep people in the style they aspire to, yet the very policies to protect the poorest pensioners discourage others from saving. Who is to say that the MIG will survive in the medium-term, never mind a long-term view? Surely its short sighted to not advise people to save now given the long timescales we are talking about.

I would reckon 5% each from employee and employer would be reasonable. If that is too unpalatable in the short-term then they could start with 3% each and give dates when it would increase.

Neb

Reply to
Nebulous

"Nebulous" wrote

Compulsion would really just be higher taxation, with a higher state pension.

[If you are forced to pay an extra percentage of earnings, then it is a tax. If that money goes into a fund, from which you are (eventually) paid a pension, then that's equivalent to receiving a higher state pension in return for your past tax contributions.]

Why is "compulsion" so much more essential than "higher 'State Second Pension' for higher NI payments" (say) ??

Reply to
Tim

Well I don't see it quite like that. I really value a chunk of my pension being funded rather than just being based on promises of payment from future generations. I was in the Health Service scheme and took the opportunity to move it to a local authority one when I moved to work for a voluntary organisation. One of the main advantages of that move for me was that I moved to a funded scheme.

The problem with higher NI is that it will go where the additional 1% last year went. It will get absorbed by current demands.

I didn't necessarily mean a state fund, or a state pension.

Neb

Reply to
Nebulous

In message , Nebulous wrote

Are local authority pensions actually based on a fund? I was under the impression that a lot of pensions for local authorities employees were based on current local taxation.

Reply to
Alan

"Nebulous" wrote

That's your choice - why force it onto everyone?

"Nebulous" wrote

Not necessarily - there's no reason why any future addition to state pension arrangements would have to be PAYG - it could just as easily be funded.

"Nebulous" wrote

The fund needn't actually be kept by the state - but "compulsion" must, necessarily, involve some state controls over where the fund is invested (otherwise people could just "invest" theirs in a new house & car - or whatever else they fancied at the time ...).

Compulsion also would dictate a certain (minimum) level of contribution, which would then effectively be a tax. If you don't live to enjoy the pension, there is no difference to you whether the "tax" actually built up a fund for later or not.

However you dress it up (from PAYG state scheme to funds invested at (state-)independent institutions) - if you are forced to pay, it is a TAX!!

Reply to
Tim

Why not simply change the motivations of saving - by removing all means testing etc. from the state pension and just give everyone the same amount guaranteed so that people know that anything they save is then useful to them - the current problem is not that people don't want to save but there's no motivation too, the marginal tax rate on pensions, and the forced annuity purchasing is not a persuasive reason to save - especially when the alternative of reducing debt now is much more valuable.

Jim.

Reply to
Jim Ley

There has been a lot written about the cost of paying public sector pensions that are unfunded. There have been estimates of ?5p on income tax to meet the current liabilities. Some major schemes are unfunded, like the Health Service (6 per cent contribution from employees) and the civil service ( I believe some of them don't contribute at all. ) The fire brigade allows retirement after 30 years service on a full pension, and they are not funded. That was one of the reasons the pay dispute was so bitter. They have had big increases in funding that have all been swallowed up to pay pensions. Any big pay increase would greatly increase the future liabilities.

However most local authority employees have fully funded schemes. Your dustperson, library attendant, swimming pool nmanager and many more people I cannot be bothered thinking of have a decent final salary scheme which is funded, as long as they are employed directly by the council. Many other organisations, such as the charity I work for are admitted bodies to such schemes. The employers contributions have risen steadily over the last few years, to ensure funds can meet their liabilities, so a fair whack of council money is going into the pot every year, but there is a pot there.

Neb

Reply to
Nebulous

You certainly have a curious use of language Tim. When I first started working my mother insisted I save some of my earnings. She even went so far as to hold my bankbook and ask me for some money to contribute to it every time I got paid. Yet I never considered she was taxing me. She was instilling some sense of financial discipline in someone who could have been willing to spend everything he earned.

We need to do something about funding retirement, although this country is in fact better off than most of Europe.

I would far rather see money go into an individual pot with my name on it than disappear into a much larger state organised, possibly there, possibly borrowed for something else type of pot. The history of state run national insurance funds has not been one that would inspire confidence.

I also think it could be sold more easily to the electorate. A 10% hike in tax to cover pension liabilities would not go down well- whereas being compelled to save may be more readily accepted. There could be arrangements for family members to inherit the funds on death. It certainly wouldn't need to be lost.

I'm not in a position to force my idea on everyone, nor would I want to be- just thinking out loud.

Neb

Reply to
Nebulous

"Nebulous" wrote

So, in line with that situation - do you think that the *state* is not taxing you when they take money to spend on things for you??

"Nebulous" wrote

Of course - but that doesn't need to involve a *specific* system being forced onto everyone. Why not let them save/invest in whatever way they wish?

"Nebulous" wrote

That's not the point I was trying to make.

Compulsion would involve a *particular* kind of "pot" (even if it has got your name on it). Some people may like that type of "pot". Some may not.

"Nebulous" wrote

Only if the electorate doesn't think about it properly, and see that the two are really similar!

"Nebulous" wrote

Doesn't matter - it still ties-up the funds in a way the "owner" may not be happy with.

"Nebulous" wrote

Of course not - but the government is, and you appeared to imply that they should.

Reply to
Tim

Thats the difference Tim- she didn't take it to spend on me, she stuck it in a bank account with my name on it. Whereas with tax there is no clear link between paying and receiving. I don't make up a balance sheet to see if I'm getting out as much as I put in. Like most people I mutter about the deductions from my salary yet am relatively happy with the services the state provides.

It could involve a broad range of pots, in different styles and colours, with different risk levels and benefits at retirement age, so we'd try to cater for a broad selection of pot fanciers. We're very accomodating with our pots.

Except in my world their not!

Well I think they should and you obviously think they shouldn't.

That the public are turning away from pensions in their droves, because they hope the Government will top up their pensions for free is quite disconcerting to me and rather than a state second scheme that has been discredited since the days of graduated pensions I think compulsion gives the best chance out of this mess. You of course are quite welcome to disagree

Neb (James)

Reply to
Nebulous

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.