Search
Close this search box.

Darling’s tax relief proposals ‘clumsy’

Darling’s tax relief proposals ‘clumsy’

Darling’s tax relief proposals ‘clumsy’

Dismissing pensions industry concerns ‘diminishes the consultation process, that is according to Mercer, which has expressed ‘extreme disappointment’ that the government has failed to listen to the pensions industry in implementing its policy restricting higher rate tax relief on pensions. 

Beyond the cost burden, these changes will impose on schemes, there are public policy considerations regarding the consequences if very high earners turn their backs on employer sponsored pension saving, resulting in the closure of high quality schemes for all employees. 

In the 2010 Budget documents, the government has confirmed its intention to continue with an expensive and controversial aspect of its proposals: it will be mandatory for pension schemes to pay the tax of very higher earners from scheme assets at the member’s request, which it is suggested will increase burden on trustees. 

“The government is treating pension schemes like a deep pocket it can dip its hand into when it’s short of cash,” said Eleanor Dowling, a Principal in Mercer’s retirement, risk and finance business. “It completely disregards trustee responsibility towards ordinary scheme members, forcing them to act as the agents for an elite group at the expense of the majority of members.”

Industry groups have demonstrated to the government that its regulatory impact assessment underestimates the cost of this new obligation by at least a factor of 10. Sector commentators are widely interested to see whether the Department for Work and Pensions and the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) are in agreement with a radical change such as this, which allows pension scheme assets to be paid to the Treasury to meet a new income tax obligation.

The pensions industry worked closely with government to formulate and implement the Finance Act 2004 pensions tax regime. This meant radical change for the industry, employers, trustees and members. These stakeholders were promised a simplified, stable regime in exchange for the upheaval caused by the introduction of the new system in 2006.  “That regime is entirely disrupted by the insertion of these new rules, and blatantly ignores expert industry views,” concluded Dowling.

25 March 2010 

Human Resources news brought to you by theHRDIRECTOR – the only independent strategic HR publication.

Read more

Latest News

Read More

The 3 challenges leaders face when seeking outcomes at pace

28 March 2024

Newsletter

Receive the latest HR news and strategic content

Please note, as per the GDPR Legislation, we need to ensure you are ‘Opted In’ to receive updates from ‘theHRDIRECTOR’. We will NEVER sell, rent, share or give away your data to third parties. We only use it to send information about our products and updates within the HR space To see our Privacy Policy – click here

Latest HR Jobs

University of Cambridge – Judge Business SchoolSalary: £32,332 to £38,205 pa, pro rata

University of Cambridge – Judge Business SchoolSalary: £29,605 to £33,966 pa, pro rata

University of Oxford – Blavatnik School of GovernmentSalary: Grade 5: £28,759 – £33,966 per annum (with a discretionary range to £37,099)

Software Development Director (Exec Team Seat). Remote Working with Ellesmere Port Office-Based Minimum 1 Day Per Week. + Contribution towards membership fees. £120,000 – £140,000

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE