Is auto-enrolment to become a stealth-tax on the poor?

stealth tax two

Freedom

 

The DWP has released a 200 page  report into the state of the auto-enrolled nation. You can access it here.

I’ve read the executive summary which is full of surprises and the report is clearly informing future strategy.

The executive summary is data heavy and analysis light. It concludes that we are saving more but that our saving is diluted over a wider group so that average pension saving is actually down.

The summary looks at the pinch points of Auto-enrolment, in particular the opt-out patterns but doesn’t contextualise its findings against the needs of households. What is needed is to know whether it is sensible for low-earners to be saving into workplace pensions (as opposed to avoiding debt) and whether the proposed increases in full-pay saving , are really necessary.

If you haven’t seen the proposals for auto-enrolment, have a look at yesterday’s blog.

david robbins

Is auto-enrolment becoming a stealth tax on the poor?

Nudging low-earners into high savings increases their savings ratios much faster than high-earners. With an improving second state pension , it could be that many low-earners are “over-saving” and could be doing better things with their money.

Lurking at the back of this are comments made in a recent review of the solvency of state pensions by the outgoing Government Actuary

gad NI FUND

GAD quinquennial review of State pension Funding (2014)

 

I am told that “phasing options” is code for a reduction in state pensions. This is of course the Treasury’s de-risking strategy. High dependency ratios among poor pensioners mean high state support for poor pensioners. Getting pensioners to pay for their own support through private pensions reduces the need for subsidisation from the tax-payer. This is how stealth taxes work.


Why don’t low earners get savings incentives?

Such a cynical view gains credence when one considers the absence of any discussion on tax-relief for those not paying tax. As numerous blogs have shown, a high proportion of those auto-enrolled with earnings in the  £8-12,000 range are contributing to workplace pensions without getting the promised government incentive (equivalent to tax-relief).

These people will see their minimum contributions increase by 500% over the next two years, but they will not see this blow cushioned in any way by the incentives enjoyed by higher earners. How absurd and how unfair. The problem is compounded by low-earners not benefiting from other tax-saving-wheezes such as “salary sacrifice”.


And how do the poorest get paid a pension from all this saving?

At the time that the Government Actuary wrote his report (back in 2014), there was an assumption that all this pension saving would turn into the payment of a wage for life (a pension). The words “Defined Ambition” appear in the excerpt quoted.

GAD was writing when the hope was that this workplace pension saving would result in the payment of pensions resulting from the adoption of CDC and other strategies by workplace pensions. Ironically, this is strategy, that was seen as “at odds” with pension freedoms, was dropped early in the term of office of the ill-starred Cameron government.

Two and a half years later, the calls are once again for a means to turn pension pots into pensions. Royal Mail and its principal union are calling for 140.000 postal workers to save using collective defined contribution, the Work and Pension Select Committee is inquiring into how CDC might yet get the oxygen of proper regulations and the Labour party has adopted CDC as part of its pension proposals.

The answer to the question about how the poorest get pensions from their savings does not get answered by IFAs – who are not their to give financial advice to those with modest savings. It is not answered by the pension freedoms – see how they play out in Port Talbot. The answer to the problems low earners have converting cash to a wage for life lies in CDC.

87% of Royal Mail workers in the CWU voted for a wage for life over a cash balance of DC solution.


I want to see the end of pensioner poverty.

The auto-enrolment proposals being put forward by Government under the disguise of supporting younger people, are in practice a tax on the poor.

  1. They hit poor people’s wages disproportionately hard. (see chart above)
  2. They exacerbate the fiscal injustices of the pension taxation system
  3. They offer Government the moral hazard of reducing state spending on state pensions
  4. They are ignoring the meaningful reforms of workplace savings plans to make them workplace pension plans.

I want to see the end of pensioner poverty, but I don’t want that to be achieved by making ordinary families save so hard that they cannot have a decent standard of living while working.

The proposals put forward by David Gauke this morning are based upon faulty assumptions. I look forward to reading the whole of the DWP analysis and expanding on this theme over coming weeks.

This looks like being a very cold and damp Christmas for the poor and the Government auto-enrolment proposals will do nothing to make it any better.

stealth tax

Freedom

About henry tapper

Founder of the Pension PlayPen, Director of First Actuarial, partner of Stella, father of Olly . I am the Pension Plowman
This entry was posted in pensions and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Is auto-enrolment to become a stealth-tax on the poor?

  1. “Why don’t low earners get savings incentives?
    …. blogs have shown, a high proportion of those auto-enrolled with earnings in the £8-12,000 range are contributing to workplace pensions without getting the promised government incentive (equivalent to tax-relief).

    These people will see their minimum contributions increase by 500% over the next two years, but they will not see this blow cushioned in any way by the incentives enjoyed by higher earners.”

    In many cases they do get incentives. I’m constantly disappointed that most financial services professionals show such little knowledge, and even less interest, in low paid and poor people. For an industry that keeps telling us that their main concern is professional standards and financial education there us a surprising correlation between their expertise and focus and people’s prosperity.

    If you are earning between £8k-£12K then you are more than likely to qualify for an in-work benefit. Either the new Universal Credit or the legacy Jobseeker’s Allowance or Working Tax Credit. If you get UC then for every pound you pay into a pension your benefit will increase by 63p, in cash, in the following month. This is because 100% of your pension contributions are disregarded in the means test. That means that the income on which the assessment is based is reduced and your benefit increases. For JSA 50% is disregarded , so you get back 50p and for WTC it’s 41p. In general you’ll get JSA if working less than 16 hours a week; WTC is over 24 hours with children and 30 hours for those without. Most people worling between 16 and 24 hours lose out on benefits and get nothing for their pension contributions.

    I’ve always said, frequently, that pension providers bizarrely ignore this when promoting schemes but the same is true of government and other bodies too.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. alan chaplin says:

    got to smile that the link in the first line of the executive summary is broken

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s