How David Cameron plans to mess with your pension

Jane Baker
by Lovemoney Staff Jane Baker on 18 May 2010  |  Comments 31 comments

Last week's coalition document revealed a raft of new proposals on pensions. Find out how these rules will affect you.

How David Cameron plans to mess with your pension

There’s no question the UK pensions system needs to be thoroughly revamped. Obvious problems have been left festering for too many years. But will the new coalition government make any positive changes?

Last week, the coalition document set out the agreements reached by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats following negotiations on several key issues including the pensions regime. Here’s a rundown of five new key rules, and what the changes could mean for you:

Basic state pension

The coalition has pledged to restore the link between the basic state pension and earnings, which was broken by the Thatcher government 30 years ago. From April 2011, the state pension will enjoy a ‘triple guarantee’ which means it will rise each year by the higher of earnings, prices (inflation) or 2.5%.

Right now increases in the basic state pension are linked only to the rise in inflation or 2.5% if the inflation figure is lower. But pensioners were left disappointed last month with an uplift of 2.5% - or just 34p a day, with the state pension rising from £95.25 a week to £97.65 for a single person.

State pension benefits are recalculated every April using the retail prices index (RPI) figures for the previous September. But, in September 2009, the RPI was negative at -1.4% triggering a minute increase this year.

Overall, restoring the link to average earnings is good news for pensioners, since earnings normally rise faster than inflation. This could help the state pension to rise more quickly over time. That said, many pensioners find their personal rate of inflation is far higher than any of these measures, meaning the more generous state pension will still fail to keep pace with actual increases in the cost of living.

Related how-to guide

Get ready to retire

There are a lot of things to think about as you get closer to your retirement. But the early you start to prepare, the better.

State pension age

The coalition has agreed state pension age will increase from 65 to 66, although the new rule won’t come into effect before 2016 for men and 2020 for women. This is earlier than Labour’s schedule to bring retirement age for women in line with men at 65 by 2020.

Under Labour the state pension would have increased for men and women from:

  • 65 to 66 between 2024 and 2026
  • 66 to 67 between 2034 and 2036
  • 67 to 68 between 2044 and 2046.

Increasing state pension age is inevitable no matter which party came into power, but under the coalition the changes will take place sooner. This means the earliest age at which anyone can claim the basic state pension can be claimed will be increased, and many people will have to work longer before retiring. Further increases in state pension age are now likely to happen more quickly than they would have done under existing legislation.

That said, since average life expectancy is rising, the total number of years the basic state pension is paid for is expected to increase, despite normal state pension age being deferred. But this is of little benefit to those who don’t survive to normal life expectancy.

Forced retirement scrapped

Under existing rules, employers can force workers into retirement at 65. However, the coalition has agreed the default retirement age should be scrapped. This change has become necessary given that state pension age will be extended beyond 65 in years to come as we have just seen.

This is good news for employees giving them the right to choose when they want to retire. Although, there’s a risk this could disincentivise workers to save for retirement if they anticipate remaining in employment longer.

Recent question on this topic

Compulsory annuities scrapped

Right now anyone with a ‘defined contribution’ pension (including ordinary personal pensions) is obliged to convert it into an income using an annuity by the age of 75. Under current rules, this can only be avoided by using a more risky Alternatively Secured Pension where income is drawn down from a fund which remains invested. (Note this rule isn’t relevant to people with final salary or ‘defined benefit’ schemes.) The coalition has promised to axe compulsory annuity purchase at 75, although those who wish to buy an annuity will still be able to do so from 55.

This particular pension rule has been extremely unpopular with pension savers. Buying an annuity means pensioners sacrifice their pension pot to an annuity company, and, in return, recieve a guaranteed level of income for the rest of their lives. But annuity income only lasts until death. If that occurs shortly after buying the annuity, the company will keep the lion’s share of the pension, leaving nothing to pass on to the annuitant's family.  

What's more, annuity rates have dropped steadily since the nineties, giving ever lower levels of income in retirement. But, by removing the obligation to buy an annuity at 75, pensioners will be given more flexibility. They may be able to draw an income directly from the pension fund instead without the need to buy an annuity and get locked into low rates.

Scrapping compulsory annuitisation is a long-awaited and welcome move, but it’s not without drawbacks. The government fears pensioners could, by having greater control of their pension, deplete their savings too early leaving them reliant on the state for help in the future.

Public sector pensions

The death knell is sounding for public and private final salary pensions alike, which is unfortunate for any scheme member.

The two parties have agreed to establish an independent commission to review the affordability of costly public sector pension over the long-term, while protecting benefits which have already accrued. The Conservatives have also said they want to put a cap on public sector pensions above £50,000.

There's no doubt public sector workers will be hit by pension cutbacks which will most likely mean working longer in order to achieve the same benefits. Lower accrual rates and later retirement could feature as part of the new public sector pension framework. This will clearly affect younger workers more keenly who have yet to build up much of an entitlement.

Got a question about your pension? Head over to Q&A to get some free advice.

More: Free online banking tool | Don’t get caught out by this pension scandal | Turn your pension into a million pounds

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (31)

  • francesfollin
    Love rating 5
    francesfollin said

    I will be 64 in 2020 - does this mean I will not be able to claim the state pension till I am 66? I am getting fed up with seeing the goal posts constantly moved. When I started work the age for retirement was 60 - fair enough to make it the same for men and women but I now wonder if I will see any state pension till I am 70 - or even then. Meanwhile, my private pensions have taken such a bashing that I cannot have any sort of income worth having until I also get my state pension. Lots of people must be in the same boat

    Report on 18 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • foolishsceptic
    Love rating 7
    foolishsceptic said

    I remember looking at the govt actuarial website (Govt statistics office) on life expectancy, albeit a couple of years ago now so data may a changed a little but what I remember seeing was that roughly 10% of men never see their 50th birthday and nearly 25% of men never make it to 66. So basically a quarter of men will never draw their state pension. Food for thought and all helps the govt. By the way this was borne out when I attended a school reunion (when I was 50) to find that just under 10% of the men from my year were dead - 3 from illness related to being obese/smoking and one from suicide!

    Report on 19 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • goRt
    Love rating 0
    goRt said

    What's missing is removing the maximum size of a pension pot - my employer pays a signifcant %age of my package into my fund and I'll breach the upper limit for fund size well before 66; I'll then stop working costing the tax man ~ £1m in direct taxation for no benefit to society.

    PS £1.85m isn't that large a figure when starting young and compounding is taken into account.

    Report on 19 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • AuntFlo
    Love rating 24
    AuntFlo said

    I know the feeling frances, when I started work at 15 I thought I would be retiring at 60, that was the agreement they made with me when they took my money now they are going back on the deal, I have worked every day since and the goalposts have been constantly moved its a case of work till you drop so we can pay for people who never work!

    If I can claim my pension at 70 I will have worked 55 years for less than £100 I pay almost that every week in NI contributions its a disgrace when others have never worked a day and will get the same if not more when pension credits are added on top.

    Yet again those who work hard and save are punished to feed the parasites.

    Report on 19 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • gbrown
    Love rating 0
    gbrown said

    Maybe you should have saved harder then Francesfollin, diversified your pension plans and used various platforms such as ISA's, savings, and property as well as a pension fund?

    I'm 30 years old and who knows how old I will be until I can claim a state pension. But what can I do about it? Well, if I diversify my investments and savings I can at least hope to have some control, and if one investment is hit hard (i.e. stocks) then maybe another will have performed better (property)???

    Regarding your pension taking a battering lately, I would hold tight. You've still got at least 10 years til retirement by the sounds of it. Firstly, find out about your pension, and what you can do with it. Can you move it to another provider, is it the best deal (fees etc) around, can it be transferred to a SIPP?And then if you're not happy with the pension why not start an ISA or another savings mechanism.

    Secondly, 10+ years is plenty of time for the market to recover. It has already recovered greatly from the 2008 losses. Lots of people, me included, have lost a lot in our maxi-ISA's and pensions during 2008/09. However, the last 12 months have seen some incredible gains, and my SIPP and ISA's are now well ahead where they were in 2007. What I'm trying to say is that I would suggest you hold tight through this poor period (and more is to come by the way) and watch the recovery in the long term. You have time on your side!! As you approach retirement age, and (if) you are feeling less risky, you should start to transfer out of stocks/shares and more into cash - guaranteed interest gains with low risk. That way, you're less exposed to the stock market should we have a similar crash right before you are scheduled to retire.

    Personally, I'm going to keep in stocks and shares right til I retire. Some of the gains I've made are not possible with standard interest rates given by the banks. Check out the recent performance of such funds like JPM Natural Resources and Invesco Perpetual Latin America. Almost doubling my money in the last 12 months. Other funds, and lots of them, have performed very well also. Just check out the FT section or get some professional advice.

    And by the way, no I'm not in the finance industry, I'm not an advisor and I have no vested interests, only to pursue a retirement at the lowest age I can.

    Good luck

    Report on 19 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • glads69
    Love rating 13
    glads69 said

    Why does the title of this piece refer to "mess"ing with our pensions, when what is set out in it are all sensible and positive moves by this coalition?

    Public sector workers may now experience the pain of losing a gold plated final salary scheme, but this is no less than most private sector workers have experienced and, frankly, has been a long time coming.

    GBrown (lovemoney member not our ex-PM) says it best. Do not put all your eggs in one basket and if you have, try diversifying a little ASAP and hold tight. Every little as they say....

    Report on 19 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • MK22
    Love rating 142
    MK22 said

    It is sad that everybody thinks it is a good thing to move pensions back to the 1950s. But can I ask everyone who does think that 1950s style pensions are a good idea, to ponder what is happening to the money that was going into the DB scheme but isn't going into the DC scheme. OK for public sector workers, remember those are the ones who get no perks and often the least holidays and wages oh and are generally abused by everyone, it does mean that tax payers will need eventually (not now) to pay less tax. But for private firms, the money that doesn't go towards your final salary pension fund is going into the pockets of the bosses as bonuses for reducing overheads and into the pockets of the shareholders due to increased profits. The one place the savings won't go is into the wage packets of the workers who are losing their final salary pensions.

    And senior mangers' pensions schemes are ..... ?

    Report on 19 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • thesilence
    Love rating 6
    thesilence said

    My father has three annuities, every penny is used to pay for his care home that he moved into in his early 60s. He had to sell his house also to pay for the fees. Tell me, is there any point in saving for a pension at such a late age when most won't even have the health to enjoy it. 

    Report on 19 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Winchfield60
    Love rating 1
    Winchfield60 said

    So, when will the MPs be closing their extremely generous pension scheme - funded by the taxpayers who are being told by the same MPs that their pensions are not affordable and will have to put back a few years?

    Report on 19 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • ollibolliboo
    Love rating 6
    ollibolliboo said

    @MK22 Thankyou!

    I thought I was the only one who realised that the vast majority of public sector workers are very low paid people who often work very long hours and have absolutley no perks - except the final salary pension scheme. Take that away and the salary is really not worth the stress of working in the NHS, for local councils or the like. I can speak from 20yrs experience in the NHS - which only functions from the goodwill of its employees and this is being systematically undermined all the time. Take away - or continue to erode - the pension scheme and many will leave - perhaps this is the grand plan???

    Tell me - if they change the rules again can they take away the benefits I have already accrued (paid for)?

    Isn't this called 'breach of contract?'

    Report on 19 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 142
    MK22 said

    @ollibolliboo usually the only way an accrued right can be taken away is if you agree. I'm a little bit rusty on the law so don't quote me on this, but I believe it may be the case that if a new pension fund is set up and what they pay into it for "your" accrued rights is certified by an actuary to be equivalent (it would probably have to equal the transfer value of your accrued rights) then they might be able to get away with it.

    Of course, being the government they can change the law to say what they want!

    Report on 19 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Raingold
    Love rating 1
    Raingold said

    Below is the response from the Pensions agency, I asked why I couldn't get my pension until I'm 66 but I will have worked and paid tax/national insurance since I was first employed aged 16. Their website clearly states you need 30 years contributions before you can claim a full pension - obviously not true! Perhaps I should have chosen the oether path and not worked at all - I'll probably be worse off when I retire because I 've got an AVC ( very small- but seemed a good idea at the time). I work in the NHS for an average wage and know lots of colleagues on minimum wage who work longer hours than they're paid for and the abuse they put up with seems to increase year by year. If local and central government /NHS/education got rid of the excessive duplication of paperwork and data collection there would be more money for everyone and services would be more productive and efficient!

    "National Insurance does not only go towards your State Pension. It is used in case you need to claim future benefits and the Health Service.You need 30 years of qualifying earnings and paying National Insurance for full basic State Pension. If you are employed and have qualifying earnings you may continue to build up additional State Pension. Paying into an Occupational or Private pension scheme can affect this figure.You cannot claim your State Pension until official State Pension age."

    Report on 19 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • RayR22
    Love rating 3
    RayR22 said

    goRt suggests that a pension pot of £1.85M isn't that large a figure - amazing. Bearing in mind that this would generate an annuity pension well in excess of £100K per annum, I suspect that you would have to be well within the top 10% salary bracket to achieve this.

    Report on 19 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • atseyes1
    Love rating 4
    atseyes1 said

    @glads69 said 'Public sector workers may now experience the pain of losing a gold plated final salary scheme, but this is no less than most private sector workers have experienced and, frankly, has been a long time coming.'

    If the final salary of the public sector worker in question is 'peanuts', I do not think that the pension payout could be described as 'gold-plated. The vast majority of public sector workers are not Whitehall mandarins, but nurses, hospital porters, dustmen, etc; people who are generally undervalued and underpaid for the work they do, work which is vital for the functioning of our society. Bearing in mind that we are likely to be heading for a period of public sector pay restraint, if not an outright freeze, then @ollibolliboo is most likely right. Just do not plan on needing the NHS any time soon!

    Report on 20 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nickpike
    Love rating 270
    nickpike said

    No mention of Gordon Brown wrecking what was a perfectly viable system

    Report on 20 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • irishshamrock
    Love rating 0
    irishshamrock said

    i have worked in the public sector for many year's (nhs) it took me 16yrs to earn £6.87 an hour i worked long hours working my day's off and holiday's to make ends meet to keep a roof over my childrens head's as i was a sole earner i also had a disabled husband and son. i was medically retired 4ys ago due to ill health most likely caused by my job. i was rewarded with a golden hand shake of 7,500 and a monthly pension of 230 pounds which by the way is taxed. paying in to a pension did me know favour's neither did working all nearly all my life because the only reward i received was to lose the job i loved and now the home which i worked hard for. but what sickens me the most is when i read some people's comments and they keep going on about what's being taken of them and how much the taxpayers are supporting people on benifit's. well to set the record straight for those i have been a taxpayer and now on benifit's which i feel it's my right to claim as i like most on benifit's were taxpayers . and those on benifits don't get thousand's as in my case i was paid 13 pound's aweek housing cost and 10pence a week income support and why because i have a pension of 230 pounds a month which is taxed. 

    Report on 20 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • The Democrat
    Love rating 21
    The Democrat said

    Whilst it might be reasonable to assume that any public sector pension changes will not be retrospective - don't bank on it. It is true that we have a new government in office, but I just have the incy feeling that fiscal drag will have its' attractions. In other words a stealth tax. In other words tinker with indexation, which is where one could say that Jane is correct when she alludes to politicians 'messing' with pensions. I say this because just this tax year 2010/11, the basic SRP indeed increased by the 'norm' ie 2.5%. However, S2P or SERPS stood still. This could easily happen to public sector pensions - remove indexation and you save bucket loads. Tempting isn't it? BTW, the hoary old chestnut of gold plated pensions. The average civil service pension when last I checked was 4.7K per annum - less than 100 quid a week. It's only the few fat cat Permanent Secretaries who have their snouts firmly in the trough.

    Report on 20 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • livepeanuts
    Love rating 1
    livepeanuts said

    It is time that pulbic sector workers joined in the sacrifice, they are a luxury we can't afford. They should work as much as the private sector, retire on the same terms as everybody else. The pensions act should apply to everybody across the board.

    In the private sector there are plenty of not nice, hard, dangerous jobs: security, construction, engineering. If they all can work to 65 or whatever there is no reason for teachers, nurses, public servants to do the same. Gordon had a good dig at the private sector pensions, now everybody should have same retirement age, same default pension. Any improvements on that should be for everybody. Nobody's work is more deserving than that of other people.

    Report on 20 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 142
    MK22 said

    Livepeanuts may be right, perhaps there are some public sector workers who could do with wage cuts to bring the median public sector wage down to that of the rest of workers. Personally the first I'd attack is the £65k MPs get. After all, of all groups of public sector "employees" in this country, they are the ones we need the least.

    Report on 20 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • cynicalcolin
    Love rating 0
    cynicalcolin said

    Vert sneaky to restore the earnings link on state pensions the very year that we expect RPI inflation in September to be higher than earnings inflation! So it sounds good, but will cost nothing this coming year.

    Report on 20 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • SiGl26
    Love rating 26
    SiGl26 said

    May have been posted before, but I didn't read anything. Over the last 10+ years, public sector pay has caught up with (and at the lowest levels passed) private sector, in part at least because of the drive to hire 'the best' from the private sector. The argument that public sector employees traded job security and pension for current pay level no longer holds, and our pension provision (and redundancy risk) needs to reflect this.

    Have to agree about MPs pensions though. Why should they get a better pension after five years service than anyone else in the public sector?

    BTW, when I first read about the 'earnings link' I thought the SSP (SERPS as was) was going to be uncapped... Now that's really not fair; pay NIC on ALL your pay, get extra pension on part of it...

    Report on 20 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • adwalton
    Love rating 3
    adwalton said

    Raingold: You seem to have misunderstood the Pensions Agency web site. You need 30 years of National Insurance contributions to be able to get the full State pension, but that doesn't mean you get the pension as soon as you have accrued 30 years. otherwise people who started work at 16 would be retiring at 46. It means you have to have 30 years by the time you reach retiremnet age. This is actually quite generous. You used to have to have paid a lot more NI contributions to qualify It now means that during a working life of 16 to 66 (50 years) you are allowed to have 20 years when you don't pay any NI and still get a full pension. Out of that 50 years you also get 'free' years for every year after age 16 when you were in full time employment and for the years between age 60 and State Pension age.

    Report on 21 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • adwalton
    Love rating 3
    adwalton said

    cnynicalcolin: I thought the same as you when I first heard of the plans to link pensions to pay rates, but as it's the higher of inflation, payr ates and 2.5% it could be of benefit to pensioners in future years.

    Report on 21 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • adwalton
    Love rating 3
    adwalton said

    The democrat: I agree with everything you say except for your last sentence. Calling permanent Secretaries fat cats is really usuing the same sterotypical language as poeple who think all public sector workers have gold-plated pensions. The job of Permanent secretary carries a huge amount of responsibility and only a very few out of thousands of Civil Servants reach this level. Having risen to the top of their profession, they deserve to be paid accordingly. In any case, they are usually getting on in years by the time they have had all the promotions necessary to get to the top, so they don't enjoy their high salaries for long. Could you do the job?

    Report on 21 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • rightoncommander
    Love rating 14
    rightoncommander said

    A lot of sweeping statements surrounding public sector pensions here. The truth is that the picture is much patchier than many on both sides would claim.

    Many jobs in the public sector don't exist in the private sector (or nearly), such as teachers and nurses, so comparison is difficult, but I could not manage financially if I retrained as either. They are welcome to their pay, holidays and pensions.

    Other jobs are directly comparable, in support services like admin, finance and IT. I'd give my right arm for such a job in the public sector. Pay is comparable to the private sector or a touch worse, but conditions, holidays and pensions invariably better. However, I don't envy them being the lightning rod for public anger and accompanying blithe assumption that their work has no value, nor for the job insecurity and inflated workloads they can look forward to when Boy George gets his teeth in.

    And then there are the senior managers, CEOs of councils and the like. Their snouts are undeniably firmly buried in the trough. Sadly, private sector company directors are just as venal, and enjoy comparable pay and benefits.

    Even this is a gross simplification, but really, people, at least make some effort.

    And finally, of course, public sector pensions never used to be any better than private ones. Perhaps we should reserve our anger for the bosses who have taken away our pensions, rather than expressing it at those fortunate enough not to have been robbed like us?

    Report on 21 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • ies2000
    Love rating 1
    ies2000 said

    Glad69 you are right!!! Jane is clearly a gordonphile, when I say "good riddance!"

    I find using scaremongering titles like this irritating at best and downright insulting at worst!!

    All I can say is Halleluja for the demise of Labour - long may it last!!

    Good to see another Labour folly, HIPS being abolished along with all the non-jobs it created!!

    Report on 22 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • goRt
    Love rating 0
    goRt said

    RayR22,

    I did indeed suggest a £1.8m pot is small, using the calculator here:

    http://money.guardian.co.uk/calculator/form/0,,603163,00.html

    a 25yr old person would only have to start contributing £350 to get a pot that size using compounding and taking the other defaults.

    Don't forget that contributions are currently very tax efficient

    Report on 24 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • russelljcarr
    Love rating 7
    russelljcarr said

    If anyone else

    disapproves of this headline:

    Go here and report it. Tell LM how you're tired of the

    misleading, attention-seeking headlines that are seriously diulting the

    excellent user experience we used to get.

    http://www.lovemoney.com/inside/customer-services/panic-room.aspx

    Report on 24 May 2010  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • scubydoo
    Love rating 0
    scubydoo said

    Hi the goverments chenge the rules all the time so you dont know whats round the next corner I have been verry ill with cancer so I took the option of taking my private pension two months ago aged 51 before they changed the rules, it's not a lot but I as am not expected to live that long (3 to 5 years) I wanted to max the cash element so I opted to go to drawdown then to transfer to an enhanced annuity to recieve the max income as the enhancmets were good I have now been told the door has been closed & can not take the annuity till I am 55 which I may not make it stinks. beware anyone who can mess with your finances especialy governments.

    Report on 14 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • libbet
    Love rating 0
    libbet said

    I retired three years ago with a small private pension at age 60 due to ill health. However, what I object to is that each time my government pension increases I lose roughly the same in tax from my private pension. Surely in this day ang age they could at least stop taxing pensioners who have tried to provide a decent standard of living by putting money away for their old age instead of taxing it. 

    Report on 14 June 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • glads69
    Love rating 13
    glads69 said

    atseyes1 you may not see this response to your comment above about public sector pensions NOT being gold plated, but I still wanted to reply to you.

    What I meant by these pensions being gold plated is that they are guaranteed, not that they are huge for all public sector workers. There are just as many private sector workers who are as poorly paid as nurses and other lower paid public sector workers, yet the lower paid in the private sector have no pension guarantees and often no pension at all.

    I know the dangers of not funding the NHS properly and I would not want its demise. However, that is not an argument for guaranteeing pension levels for some UK workers and not others, particularly after Labour's irresponsible spending spree.

    Report on 14 August 2010  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Provider & account name AER/Gross Interest paid Apply
now

Aldermore
1 Year Fixed Rate Account

1.85% /
1.85%
On Maturity Apply

Derbyshire BS
Derbyshire NetSaver Issue 11

1.70% /
1.70%
Yearly Apply

Nationwide BS
MySave Online Plus

1.70% /
1.69%
Monthly Apply
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV4