Why isn't 8% of my salary going into my pension like it's meant to? STEVE WEBB replies
I work in the warehouse as a warehouse operator (not management).
When I questioned HR on why 4 per cent of my wage was not being taken out, I was informed that there is a £480 (per 4 weeks) threshold and that the pension contributions start after this £480.
Whenever I read up on work place pension contributions, I see it stated about the minimum 8 per cent but in reality this not correct, due to this threshold figure.
My questions are: why is 8 per cent given as a minimum, and why and when did the £480 threshold come into effect?
Steve Webb replies: The often-quoted figure of 8 per cent minimum workplace pension contributions is, as you rightly say, not quite what it seems.
I'm happy to explain what is going on, why it was set up in this way and how it might change in future.
To understand what is going on, it's worth going back to basics about what pensions are trying to achieve.
One of the main reasons why we have a pension system is to help ensure that people's standard of living does not drop sharply when they no longer have a wage.
To achieve this, we often talk about a target, for people on modest incomes, of securing around two thirds of pre-retirement income once you stop working.
People should not need 100 per cent of their pre-retirement income because they typically no longer have 'working age' costs such as mortgage, travel-to-work or childcare costs, and also no longer pay National Insurance on their income.
But a target of around two thirds would enable most people to enjoy a similar standard of living when retired to the standard they were used to when in work.
The next thing is to look at how much of this will come from the state pension.
As a very rough benchmark, the new state pension will replace a little under one third of the average worker's wage.
This means that they need a similar amount from a private pension to bring them up to the two thirds target.
When automatic enrolment was being designed, it was assumed that the first slice of earnings was fully replaced by the state pension and that what was needed on top of this was a percentage of the 'next slice' of earnings.
For this reason, when the law was written to require workers and firms to make pension contributions at a set percentage rate, this percentage was applied to earnings above a floor, currently £6,240 per year.
Earnings above this level (up to a ceiling of £50,270) are described as 'qualifying earnings', and the mandatory 5 per cent from the employee (or 4 per cent net of tax relief) and 3 per cent from the employer are applied to this band.
I should stress that we are talking here about the legal minimum rates of contribution and that many employers and workers do more than this, including some who apply contributions from the first pound of earnings, not just on 'qualifying' earnings.
Over time there has been growing concern over this system, particularly because of the impact on lower earners.
To give an example, for someone who works part-time and earns (say) £12,480 – double the floor for qualifying earnings- the mandatory pension saving rate is applied to just half of their wage. By contrast someone working full time on £31,200 – five times the floor – is making contributions based on four fifths of their total wage.
In response to this, a Government review of automatic enrolment published back in 2017 recommended that the starting point for contributions should be reduced to zero, so that the 8 per cent headline figure would apply to all earnings up to the ceiling, currently £50,270.
Despite the general consensus about this recommendation, nothing has so far changed. In the last parliament a law was passed which paves the way for this change, but it has yet to be implemented.
Unfortunately, it seems that progress on this front is probably now further away than it has ever been.
The reason for this is that any widening of the band of 'qualifying earnings' would cost both workers and employers more.
With concerns over an ongoing 'cost of living' crisis for many lower paid workers, and with a very substantial increase in employer National Insurance in the Autumn 2024 Budget, there is very little appetite in Government for further measures that would hit paypackets or employer costs.
In short, therefore, although we urgently need to get more money going into pensions, the chances of reform any time soon look very small.
The one glimmer of hope is that the Government is expected shortly to announce the second phase of its major review of pensions, and this will include the adequacy of existing pension saving rates.
It is possible that such a review will eventually (again) recommend applying mandatory contributions to the first pound of earnings, not just those above a floor.
But, even if it did so, I suspect that the implementation process would be protracted and could even fall outside the current parliament.
Ask Steve Webb a pension question
Former pensions minister Steve Webb is This Is Money's agony uncle.
He is ready to answer your questions, whether you are still saving, in the process of stopping work, or juggling your finances in retirement.
Steve left the Department for Work and Pensions after the May 2015 election. He is now a partner at actuary and consulting firm Lane Clark & Peacock.
If you would like to ask Steve a question about pensions, please email him at pensionquestions@thisismoney.co.uk.
Steve will do his best to reply to your message in a forthcoming column, but he won't be able to answer everyone or correspond privately with readers. Nothing in his replies constitutes regulated financial advice. Published questions are sometimes edited for brevity or other reasons.
Please include a daytime contact number with your message - this will be kept confidential and not used for marketing purposes.
If Steve is unable to answer your question, you can also contact MoneyHelper, a Government-backed organisation which gives free assistance on pensions to the public. It can be found here and its number is 0800 011 3797.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is Keir Starmer just one crisis away from a Labour coup?
On the Whitehall grapevine, Wes Streeting is seen as a rare success story for the government: a good communicator who is starting to deliver the change Keir Starmer promised. The chatter in Streeting's health department predicts his next stop will be 10 Downing Street. However, the health secretary might face an uphill battle to win over the Labour grassroots in the 'one member, one vote' ballot that chooses the party's leader. Even some of his admirers suspect he might be too right-wing, or 'Blairite', for many of them. Whitehall officials are less flattering about other cabinet ministers. Rachel Reeves 's autumn Budget is described by some as her 'last shot'. In other words, if she can't break out of the doom loop of 'one-off' tax rises to meet her fiscal rules, followed by exactly the same medicine in her next Budget, Starmer might be looking for a new chancellor next year. The prime minister is not immune to speculation about his future. Even his allies admit he cannot afford a repeat of his bad first year on the domestic front. 'Another crisis like the welfare climbdown and it would surely be curtains,' one Labour MP told me. Angela Rayner told last month's meeting of Labour's national executive committee that 'announcements are not enough: people have to see real improvements in their lives, soon.' Significantly, the deputy prime minister added: 'The next 12 months will decide whether Labour wins a second term.' She wasn't talking behind Keir Starmer's back; he was in the room. Few ministers would disagree with her 'one more year' theory. Starmer's problem is that first impressions of a government, prime minister or party leader usually stick, and Labour and his party's dire ratings are getting worse. Although Rayner didn't say it, the logical consequence of her statement is that if Starmer hasn't turned things round by next summer, the question of whether he should lead the party into the next general election will become a live one. The spark might be poor results in next May's mid-term elections, when Labour could lose out to the SNP in the Scottish Parliament, to Reform UK in the Welsh Parliament, and to the Greens and Jeremy Corbyn's new socialist party in English local authorities. Indeed, there's already gossip in Labour land about Starmer's future, which is fully in line with Labour's traditions. The party doesn't kill its leaders like the Conservatives, but makes up for that by debating endlessly in private who would take over if their leader fell under a Number 12 bus in Whitehall. Labour has more in common with the TV series Succession than it would admit. Despite Streeting's Whitehall fan club, the current strong favourite to succeed Starmer is Rayner. Although she insists she doesn't want the top job, it would be very hard to stick to that if it were likely to land in her lap. Rayner is performing a delicate balancing act well. She has carved out a position slightly to the left of Starmer, which is where Labour's heart beats. At the same time, she is publicly loyal to the PM; rocking the boat could damage her succession prospects. In theory, jittery Labour backbenchers, fearing they will lose their seats, could mount a coup against Starmer. In practice, they would need cabinet-level support. How loyal would the cabinet be if the PM came under real pressure? One largely forgotten factor is that only eight of today's 22-strong cabinet nominated Starmer in the 2020 Labour leadership contest – in other words, he was their first choice. They were: Hilary Benn, Yvette Cooper, John Healey, David Lammy, Ed Miliband, Bridget Phillipson, Steve Reed and Jonathan Reynolds. That doesn't mean other ministers would dump Starmer in the event of a leadership crisis. When a leader is in real trouble, any politician is bound to consider self-interest. If Rayner still looked a shoo-in, it would suit those who don't want her to succeed Starmer to rally behind him rather than pull the rug. 'Wes [Streeting], Yvette [Cooper] and other big beasts would bolster Keir rather than let Angie [Rayner] take over,' one Labour insider told me. Despite that, it is no longer certain that Starmer will lead his party into the next election. Starmer will soon reflect on his planned fightback during a much-needed holiday, which, knowing his wretched luck when it comes to taking a break, will probably be interrupted by the need to talk to other world leaders about Ukraine and Gaza. The first test of whether Starmer can turn the domestic tide will come in what is becoming an increasingly important speech to the Labour conference in Liverpool next month. 'It's going to be a hard slog from now on,' one close ally admitted.
The Sun
15 minutes ago
- The Sun
How to unlock thousands of pounds of cash just from your garden – and you don't need to raid your pension or savings
YOU could unlock thousands of pounds in extra cash without dipping into your pension or savings. It won't be for everyone, but if you have a large garden or a plot of unused land that you're willing to give up you could make money off it. 1 Developers are often searching for space to build new homes and that demand has gone up even more as the Government has plans to build 1.5million homes in five years. Alternatively, your extra land could be used for business or farming, or your neighbour may even want to buy it off you. So if you don't mind letting go of the land (or just a portion of it), there's plenty of money to be made. It can free up cash for you to spend on you and your family, or be put towards your retirement, without you needing to move to downsize your home. Plus, it can also save you time and money on garden maintenance. You should be aware that some properties are more suitable than others for this. For example, post-war homes built in the 1940s and 1950s often sit on generous plots of land - but you might be more restricted if the land is of historical significance. A study by The Grass People of 50 locations across the UK found the average price per square metre of gardens was £1,526. That means you could stand to make tens of thousands of pounds potentially. But this can vary a lot depending on where your land is located, its condition, the value of any house next to it and whether there's parking space. We made our boring new build garden a Love Island style haven with bar & hot tub, but trolls say detail 'ruined our day' There isn't a land value calculator available online but you could get a valuation or look at how much similar plots of land sold for. What should you check first? First you should check whether selling all or part of your garden is actually viable for the purpose you're selling it for. If you're selling to a developer, it would need to be big enough for purpose and you'd also need to consider whether it would be suitable for a building plot or to be farmed. For example, you could consider whether it's easily reachable and whether it would have access to essential services like electricity, gas and water. There isn't an actual restriction on the minimum amount of land you can sell but it should be big enough for at least one property similar to other homes in the area. So if the housing is small or dense near you, the size of the land you're selling can be smaller. You should also check the deeds to your house for any restrictive covenants, which are restrictions or conditions on land attached to a property. Your land might be located within a conservation area, for example, and so you might need to follow extra regulations. Or your buyer might need approval from your local authority. If you have a mortgage on your house, you'll need to get permission from your lender before selling part of your garden. You won't be able to sell otherwise. Mortgage lenders might turn you down if they believe the sale will decrease the value of your property. They might ask you to provide evidence, such as a formal valuation, that demonstrates the sale won't decrease your home's value. How you could sell your land If you've decided to try selling, you could advertise through a land agent. Some bigger estate agencies have specialised land services that will value your land, apply for planning permission on your behalf and connect you with developers. Of course, the agent will likely take some commission for this. Another option is to look online for developers who build in your area and contact them directly. Or - if you have the time - you could scout around for sites under development in your area to see who is building. The HomeOwners Alliance strongly recommends using a conveyancing solicitor, so you'll need to factor this cost in. You don't need planning permission to sell your garden but if you have permission already sorted it can increase its value. If you sell without permission, you can get hold of your money quicker and with less hassle but you'll likely get a lower offer. You could agree with the developer that they will buy your garden for a higher price on the condition they can get planning permission to build on it. If you opt for this, the process will take about a year and you'll have to sign a legally binding contract with the developer. The third option is to obtain full planning permission yourself. This means you take on all the risk and expense of getting the planning permission, but you'll get the highest price for your land if you're successful. Bear in mind that planning costs can range from £50,000 to £100,000 for a one to two-acre site.
Daily Mail
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
How could Rachel Reeves change inheritance tax - and what would it mean for you?
The Autumn Budget might be two months away, but speculation over which taxes the Chancellor will increase has already begun. Rachel Reeves is constrained by her manifesto pledges to keep income tax, VAT and National Insurance at the same level, despite calls to 'substantially' increase taxes. She is reportedly eyeing further changes to inheritance tax (IHT), less than a year after she announced plans to charge the tax on inherited pensions from April 2027. One of her options is to impose a lifetime gifting allowance, which would hit those who try to avoid IHT by giving away money and assets to their family before they die. Why is IHT reform on the cards again, what could Reeves' plans entail - and what does it mean for you? What inheritance tax do people pay now? IHT has historically only affected the very wealthy. At the moment, just 4 per cent of estates pay it. That is set to rise because house prices are increasing, while the threshold over which people pay inheritance tax stays the same. IHT being levied on private pensions left to descendants from 2027 will drive a further increase. Since 2009, an individual has needed to be worth £325,000 if you are single, or £650,000 if married or in a civil partnership, for beneficiaries to incur any death duties. This allowance is known as the nil-rate band. If you are married, own a property and leave your main home to direct descendants (children or grandchildren) you each get a further £175,000 allowance, known as the residence nil rate band. Collectively, it means a couple that meet this criteria could pass on £1million tax-free. The £325,000 nil rate band has been unchanged for 16 years, which means that rising property prices have dragged more people into paying IHT. Had it risen in line with inflation, it would be £585,996, meaning fewer people would be affected. How gifting can reduce inheritance tax There are some ways to minimise the amount of IHT paid, by gifting money to beneficiaries while you are still alive. You can gift £3,000 a year, and unlimited small gifts of up to £250, free from tax. However, if you die less than seven years after making the gift then you will start to pay IHT. This is levied on a sliding scale, from 8 per cent if gifts were made 6-7 years before death, to 40 per cent, if made within a year. This rule is designed to stop people making large gifts to family just before they die, in a bid to avoid IHT. Like the nil rate band, the gifting allowance has not changed since its introduction in 1986. If it had risen in line with inflation, it would be quadruple its current level at £12,297. As more people gift cash or assets to beneficiaries, they are more likely to fall foul of the rules. Why is Reeves looking at the gifting rules? Financial advisers tell This Is Money there has been a significant behaviour shift among their clients. More individuals are gifting their money to children and grandchildren to minimise their inheritance tax burden ahead of the pension changes in 2027. However, figures show that most people are not paying tax on their gifts, even if the giver has died within seven years. This is because you can actually gift far more than the £3,000 gifting allowance, so long as it doesn't breach the £325,000 nil rate band. These gifts will form part of your estate - but if it is below that threshold, you still won't pay tax. For example, if you have very few assets and you gift £10,000, and remain within the nil rate band, your estate will not pay tax on it. It means that it's very difficult to know how many people are gifting money tax-free, and likely why Reeves is eyeing changes to the rules. How much does the Treasury make from tax on gifts? A Freedom of Information request by This Is Money shows the number of families that are taxed on gifting was relatively low in the three years to 2021-22, the latest figures available. The figures have remained stable, with around 1,000 families being stung by IHT on their gifts each year, but some advisers suspect this doesn't paint the full picture. 'There will be people who gift and die within 7 years and then it's clawed back from the nil rate band, which don't appear in the figures,' says Lisa Caplan, director of advice and guidance at Charles Stanley. Shaun Moore, tax and financial planning expert at Quilter, also suspects 'people are gifting within the allowances and not suffering tax on the gifts.' For example, a gift of £250,000 wouldn't appear in the gifting table, but the estate will pay the tax because they've lost that amount from the nil rate band. Caplan predicts that the number of people who fall into the 'gfiting trap' will be higher as more people take out their tax-free cash early and start the seven-year clock. But this may not go far enough for Reeves, who needs to plug a £40billion black hole. What could Rachel Reeves change? Reeves is reportedly looking at a lifetime gifting allowance to minimise the amount people can pass on to their beneficiaries without incurring tax. The Guardian reported that the Treasury is mulling a lifetime cap to limit the amount of money or value of assets an individual can give away. This would be an additional administrative burden and mean HM Revenue & Customs would have to hold long-term records of gifts over decades. Rachel Griffin, chartered financial planner at Quilter says a cap 'might encourage people to make large gifts earlier in life to use up their allowance, potentially moving significant assets out of their control before they are financially ready.' Gianpaolo Mantini, chartered financial planner at Saltus, thinks Reeves could introduce lifetime capital transfer charges, as is already the case with trusts. 'They might do something like the French system where you can give a certain amount within a 15 year period [but] I think it would be very difficult logistically.' Another option for Reeves is to extend the seven-year rule to 10 years, although this would fly in the face of the reduction to five years, as first explored by the now-defunct Office for Tax Simplification. This is likely to receive significant backlash and only encourage people to gift earlier before they can afford to do so, experts say. Instead, it is more likely that the Treasury, which the Guardian reports is reviewing taper relief rules, removes the taper entirely. Taper relief is widely misunderstood and is generally only available to small numbers of the very wealthiest. Individuals only get taper relief if the value of the gift takes you above the nil rate band of £325,000. So if you gave someone £100,000 and then you died within 7 years, all that has done is reduce the available nil rate band, and the taper relief would not apply. I suspect there is under-reporting of gifts - a solicitor might not know unless they go through bank records Gianpaolo Mantini, chartered financial planner at Saltus As such, taper relief tends only to benefit the very wealthy, according to advisers. This could be a more palatable way for Reeves to change IHT rules for the wealthy, without imposing a wealth tax. One of Reeves' other options is to hand over more powers to HMRC and the Probate Office to ensure people are properly reporting gifts. 'I suspect there's a bit of underreporting [of gifts],' says Mantini. 'The solicitor doing probate might not know of any gifts made within seven years unless they go through bank records to see large sums given out. 'Unless the family or beneficiary declares it to the executor might not have any realistic way of knowing. 'A lot of gifts are small in nature and the larger ones might not always be fully declared.' This would mean more investment in public services at a time when the public purse is stretched as is, and it would prove difficult to establish whether a large sum is a gift or payment. Finally, Reeves could change capital gains tax (CGT) rules - the tax people pay when they make a profit on selling assets such as a house or shares. Currently, when you inherit assets the CGT slate is wiped clean and the base cost of is reset at the value at the date of death. So if someone inherited their parents' house, then sold it straight away, capital gains tax would only be payable on any profit they made above the value of the property when they inherited it - likely nothing. Reeves could change this, so families may have to pay tax on the entire 'profit' made by the child. It could make some families pay the double hit of CGT - up to 24 per cent - and IHT at 40 per cent. What it means for you Any changes to the IHT rules are intended to bring more people into the tax net. A lifetime gifting cap would mark a significant departure from the way IHT has historically been imposed, and advisers say it would mark a huge change to the way families pass on wealth. 'Such a cap would bring more gifts into scope for IHT and could capture not just large transfers designed to reduce tax bills but also modest, routine support between family members,' says Griffin. Ingrid McCleaver, partner at DMH Stallard, says a lifetime cap could spell the end of the 'bank of mum and dad', with children who receive a house deposit potentially facing an IHT bill. 'Not only are parents that work hard and save having to pay income tax on their salaries and savings, they may after the next budget suffer an additional tax on death, on amounts they have not had the benefit of for possibly years,' she says. Despite possible changes to how IHT is imposed, experts advise not to make drastic changes. Daniel Hough, wealth manager at RBC Brewin Dolphin says: 'There is a fine line between passing down wealth as efficiently as possible and enjoying a comfortable retirement. 'There are important discussions you need to have about the sustainability of your retirement pot and that may require scaling back ambitions – or you may find that you have to live with the consequences of your pension running out in your 80s or 90s.'
