The Daily Mail betrays middle Britain on pensions

The Daily Mail likes to think it speaks for middle Britain, but too often it confuses the interests of the super-rich with those of middle income earners.

The Daily Mail likes to think it speaks for middle Britain. And sometimes it does, even if in ways that will not be congenial to progressives. But too often it confuses the interests of the super-rich with those of middle income earners – and seems to forget that a good proportion of those in the middle work in the public sector, including many of their readers.

How else can we explain today’s contrived pensions story? This seems to be saying it’s unfair to increase tax on those earning more than £150,000 when the real priority should be attacking the pensions of nurses, civil servants and other public servants who do have incomes around the median income of £22,000 or so.

The Mail says:

“Private sector workers will take a £4.75 billion hit to their pensions to pay for the economic recovery – while public sector workers will escape cuts.”

Let’s take this to pieces.

The private sector workers here are those earning more than £150,000. They are having their tax relief limited to bring it down to the same level enjoyed by the vast majority of the Daily Mail’s readership.

Pensions tax relief is one of the biggest hand-outs to the super-rich in the tax system. Until the Chancellor announced these changes in the pre-budget report (the budget only had a few follow-up details) everyone enjoyed tax relief on pension contributions at their marginal tax rate.

This is not widely understood, but it works like this. If someone pays a pound into their pension scheme, the amount of income on which their tax is assessed is also reduced by one pound. Someone paying the standard rate of income tax of 20 per cent will therefore save 20p (as there will be one less pound from which 20 per cent tax is taken.) But a higher-rate tax-payer, paying 40 per cent marginal tax, will save 40p (as there’s one less pound on which to charge 40 per cent).

In other words it costs 80p for a standard rate tax-payer (ie the big majority of working Daily Mail readers) to put a pound in their pension while it costs only 60p for a higher rate taxpayer.

Not surprisingly higher rate tax-payers take full advantage. In 2007/8 tax relief cost £37.6 billion – 2.7 per cent of GDP. This tax relief is heavily skewed towards the well off. 60 per cent goes to higher rate tax payers and a quarter of tax relief – nearly £10 billion a year – goes to the one per cent of the population who earn more than £150,000.

Rightly the Chancellor has seen this as an easy way to help raise funds. The rationale for tax relief on pensions is that it encourages people to save so that they have a decent income in retirement and will not be dependent on the state’s means-tested benefits. But it is hard to justify spending money on encouraging those who will have a substantial retirement income to make it even bigger.

Contrary to what the Mail says this change in tax relief will affect top earners whether they work in the public or private sector. Public servants have the same tax relief regime as private sector workers.

But there are very few public sector staff who earn more than £150,000 a year, and a tiny number who earn substantially more than this. Changes in tax relief for the super-rich will therefore have little effect on public service workers as the super-rich work for banks and hedge funds not the NHS.

nd while many will be concerned at the growth of high salaries in the public sector, this is a contagion that has spread from the private sector where wage growth for those in boardrooms has been outstripping their employees’ pay packets for years.

But of course there is no pension story that cannot in the Daily Mail be turned against public sector workers.

Over at the Times (read it on-line while you can) Antonia Senior trots out the standard lines against public sector pensions in an article about the costs of an aging society. It’s a pity they don’t include the graph online that is in the print edition – as that shows that the one area of spending on the elderly that doesn’t soar is the cost of public sector pensions. Treasury estimates are that these currently cost 1.7 per cent of GDP will rise to 1.9 per cent in 2019 and then fall again.

The challenges for the Treasury are long-term care, the health needs of an aging population and the costs of state support for pensioners. Importantly the costs of public sector pensions are not offset by either employee or employer contributions in these figures or the chart.

21 Responses to “The Daily Mail betrays middle Britain on pensions”

  1. Nigel Stanley

    I have post on @leftfootfwd: The Daily Mail betrays middle Britain on pensions: http://bit.ly/aPVF88

  2. gemma tumelty

    RT @NigelStanley: I have post on @leftfootfwd: The Daily Mail betrays middle Britain on pensions: http://bit.ly/aPVF88

  3. Philip Painter

    RT @leftfootfwd: The Daily Mail betrays middle Britain on pensions: http://bit.ly/aPVF88

  4. Max p

    RT @leftfootfwd: The Daily Mail betrays middle Britain on pensions: http://bit.ly/aPVF88

  5. UNISON EMids LocGovt

    The Daily Mail betrays middle Britain on pensions
    http://is.gd/b0ILc

  6. uberVU - social comments

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by leftfootfwd: The Daily Mail betrays middle Britain on pensions: http://bit.ly/aPVF88

  7. Daily Mail defends super-rich | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC

    […] Mail defends super-rich Posted at 8:31 pm on 26 Mar 10 by Nigel Stanley I have a guest post on Left Foot Forwards wondering why the Daily Mail is more interested in the pensions of those […]

  8. John

    #DailyFail RT @NigelStanley: I have post on @leftfootfwd: The Daily Mail betrays middle Britain on pensions: http://bit.ly/aPVF88

  9. topsy_top20k

    The Daily Mail betrays middle Britain on pensions: http://bit.ly/aPVF88

  10. Donnacha DeLong

    RT @Johninnit: #DailyFail RT @NigelStanley: I have post on @leftfootfwd: The Daily Mail betrays middle Britain on pensions: http://bit.ly/aPVF88

  11. First Income

    The Daily Mail betrays middle Britain on pensions | Left Foot Forward http://bit.ly/cIZmHC

  12. Trade Income

    The Daily Mail betrays middle Britain on pensions | Left Foot Forward http://bit.ly/cIZmHC

  13. David Sterling

    I’m afraid your piece is absolutely biased and incorrect. Brown, as Chancellor, raided private & company pension funds in October 1997 (£5 BILLION annually)and has continued to do so till this day. He destroyed what was considered one of the best Pansions Industry in the world. Many have has reduced pensions and some have lost theirs due to schemes collapsing. Brown is responsible and yet protects public pensions at the expense of those in the private sector.I can assure you Brown will be in for an almighty shock on the morning of the 7th May because Pensioners will never forgive.

  14. Nigel Stanley

    One small correction – knock-on effects means that people earning more than £130,000 will lose some relief.

  15. Mr. Sensible

    The Daily Fail does what the Daily Fail does best.

  16. Guido Fawkes

    It doesn’t “cost” the state anything, what you really mean is that the state doesn’t take taxes from pension contributions.

    The author claims it is “hard to justify spending money” on tax relief. There is no “spend”.

    The mindset here is revealing, it forgets that it is the taxpayer who pays the state not the state that pays the taxpayer.

  17. Mr. Sensible

    Guido there is effectively a spend; you know you’re going to get less revenue from that section of society.

  18. Sunday Times becomes ever more like the Daily Mail | ToUChstone blog: A public policy blog from the TUC

    […] today’s Sunday Times that plays exactly the same trick as the Mail article I wrote about on Left Foot Forwards on Friday. The true cost of Labour tax grab: small print reveals the extent of pain for […]

  19. John77

    The original rationale for granting full tax relief on pension contributions does not apply to those earning over £100k on any sustainable basis and I personally should be happy to see tax relief on all pension contributions limited to the basis rate.
    That said, your article is as misleading as the Daily Mail’s. Firstly the Daily Mail was not just referring to higher rate tax relief; secondly, the total tax relief on contributions by employees and the self-employed was £7.65bn in 2007-8 and £7.1bn in 2008-9 according to HMRC so it is impossible to argue that the 1% of tax-payers are pocketing £10bn, thirdly over 20% of all pension contributions are made by those paying minimum contributions and another 16% by those in stakeholder pension schemes. Your claim that 60% of the benefit goes to higher rate taxpayers implies that there are no middle-income workers in the BP, BT, Shell, Glaxo, Prudential, Tesco … etc pension schemes. Tripe!
    Do

  20. George Stephenson

    HM Revenue & Customs have place a £16 403 68, tax debt on me,I am sixtynine years old,and have payed my tax,via my employer,it seems my ex-Employer did not operate the correct code.Chris O’Connellin tax office advice was to write in to the Tax Office. Can you Please help.Regards, George.

  21. John Robertson

    Like the Daily Mail, you have misunderstood the whole position over tax releif on pension contributions. The real scandal is that there is no such thing as tax “relief” for standard rate tax payers for both private and public sector workers. The reason being that when the pension is paid part of it is in fact a return of your original investment, yet it is taxed as income. Its a bit like putting money into the building society then having 20% knocked off when you draw it out. Not only that, pension funds no longer have the benefit of dividend tax credit, thank you Mr Brown, or the annual capital gains tax allowance. All pensions are taxed in full at 20%, or even 40% if you have saved enough. Many people pay back tax at 30% because the return of their own money is treated as income resulting in the loss of the age related allowance.

    The government makes a great deal of money out of these taxes on pensions, public and private sector. The use of the term “tax relief” should be prosecutable as misselling.

Leave a Reply