logo
I've had a big pay rise to £125,000 should I salary sacrifice as much as possible into my pension?

I've had a big pay rise to £125,000 should I salary sacrifice as much as possible into my pension?

Daily Mail​4 days ago

I earn £105,000 a year and have just been promoted with a £20,000 annual pay increase from June. I am wondering if I should salary sacrifice as much as possible into my pension in the next few months.
My work pension is a salary sacrifice scheme, which helps me save on national insurance and tax and has the double benefit of lowering my income, as I earn above £100,000 and get hit by the 60 per cent tax rate.
My promotion and pay increase will fall almost entirely into that 60 per cent bracket and after reading reports this week, I am worried that the government will change the system, and I will lose out.
I could theoretically afford salary sacrifice most of my monthly earnings over the next four months into my pension, to get as much in there as possible and reduce my income this tax year. My employer says it will let me do this, but would it work from a tax perspective?
Simon Lambert, of This is Money, replies: It's fitting that this question crops up in the week that NatWest, formerly known as RBS, finally fully exited taxpayer ownership.
The two may not seem directly related but the 60 per cent tax trap is a financial crisis hangover.
Britain's stake in RBS came about due to the exceptional circumstances of the financial crisis.
Cast your mind back that far and there were also some stringent tax measures brought in to deal with an urgent need to raise funds. Unfortunately, the one you refer to that creates the 60 per cent tax trap is still with us, long after the emergency passed.
In April 2009, Chancellor Alistair Darling announced the personal allowance would start to be removed at a rate of £1 for every £2 earned above £100,000. This created Britain's highest effective official income tax rate of 60 per cent.
There are other quirks that can drive up marginal tax rates - the amount you pay on the next pound - but they depend on specific related circumstances, whereas the personal allowance removal is baked into the income tax system.
If the £100,000 threshold had moved up in line with RPI inflation, it would now be at £180,000, according to our historic inflation calculator.
The only real way to beat the tax trap is to get your income down and salary sacrifice has become a popular way of doing this, with people in the bracket often paying as much as possible into a pension.
Reports last week suggested salary sacrifice was in the Treasury's sights, as a way to claw more money in and an official report has been compiled. It remains to be seen whether rumours are true, but you should be careful about making financial decisions based solely on saving tax.
We asked an expert about where you stand on salary sacrificing as much as possible of your pension.
Anita Wright, chartered financial planner at Bolton James, replies: From a tax perspective, making significant pension contributions via salary sacrifice by the tax year end on 5th April 2026 is likely to be highly beneficial — particularly given your earnings position and the structure of your employer's scheme.
Since your new total income for the 2025/26 tax year will be £125,000, you fall squarely within the band where the personal allowance is gradually withdrawn.
Between £100,000 and £125,140, your personal allowance (the amount of income you can receive tax-free) is reduced by £1 for every £2 earned above £100,000. This results in a 60 per cent marginal tax rate on income in that range.
Once your income exceeds £125,140, you lose the personal allowance entirely.
By using salary sacrifice to reduce your gross income below £125,000, you will recover some, or all, of your personal allowance, significantly improving your overall tax position.
One of the core tax benefits of your employer's salary sacrifice scheme is that pension contributions are made fully by your employer, meaning they are exempt from both income tax and employee National Insurance (NI) unlike receiving additional salary.
This typically results in a more efficient outcome than making contributions from your net pay.
In addition, employers also benefit from a reduction in their own NI liability when salary sacrifice is used.
Some employers choose to pass part or all of their NI saving into the employee's pension plan, thereby boosting the overall contribution at no additional cost to you.
This is worth checking directly with your HR or payroll team, as it depends entirely on your employer's policy.
Your ability to do this successfully — and how much you may wish to sacrifice — will depend on several factors:
While you note that you can manage without much of your take-home pay, it's important to bear in mind that salary sacrifice will reduce your monthly net income — which would otherwise have been higher had you taken the additional salary instead.
Annual Allowance: For most individuals, the pension annual allowance is £60,000 for the 2025/26 tax year. However, this includes both your contributions and those made by your employer. Contributions above this threshold may trigger an annual allowance charge unless unused allowances from previous years can be carried forward.
· Impact on Benefits: A reduced gross salary might affect other employment-related benefits. For example, some death in service schemes or income protection policies are based on actual salary. That said, many employers calculate benefits using your notional (pre-sacrifice) salary, but this should be confirmed.
Borrowing capacity: Mortgage lenders and other credit providers often assess affordability based on income and expenditure. A lower reported income due to salary sacrifice could impact your borrowing potential, depending on the lender.
A salary sacrifice arrangement can be put into place at any point, but must meet the following criteria:
A formal written arrangement must be in place.
This must be in place before the salary is actually reduced.
The arrangement must not take your salaried remuneration below minimum wage with regards to the hours worked.
You also must not also be able to demand a switch back to full salary, otherwise HMRC may contend that a valid exchange has not taken place and implement the appropriate tax treatment that you may receive less take home pay.
Should you worry about salary sacrifice being cut?
Finally, while current pension legislation offers significant tax incentives, your concerns about potential future changes are entirely understandable.
Although no formal announcements have been made, it is natural for higher earners to consider acting sooner rather than later to optimise the available reliefs under current rules.
It is widely understood that the previous government commissioned a detailed report on salary sacrifice, examining its cost to the Treasury and exploring ways to potentially limit its use.
In parallel, HMRC has recently been modelling hypothetical scenarios to assess how much additional revenue could be raised through reform.
This suggests that salary sacrifice is firmly on the policy radar — and may well be considered by the current Chancellor as part of a broader effort to increase tax revenues. While no decisions have been made, the direction of research implies a growing likelihood that changes could be introduced in the next Budget.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

ALEX BRUMMER: 'Wise old hen' Chancellor dances on a pinhead
ALEX BRUMMER: 'Wise old hen' Chancellor dances on a pinhead

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

ALEX BRUMMER: 'Wise old hen' Chancellor dances on a pinhead

Rachel Reeves's pledge to restore fiscal stability and confine herself to one budgetary event a year is threadbare. When she delivers Labour's first full spending review next Wednesday, it will be her fourth visit to the dispatch box. As the Economist magazine remarked this week, it has been 'all pain, no gain'. Most of her difficulties can be traced back to the alleged discovery of a £22billion black hole in her public spending audit on July 30 last year. Reeves established a narrative, repeated by rote by her Cabinet colleagues, about a terrible inheritance. The number was contrived, in that the biggest element was a giveaway to public sector unions and railway workers, which brought a temporary truce. The Chancellor has made a series of tactical and strategic mistakes. At that very first appearance at the Treasury, she sowed the seeds of festering political dissonance by withdrawing the winter fuel allowance from pensioners. A costed gain to the Exchequer of £1.4billion last year and £1.5billion this year has proved ferociously politically expensive. It is now to be partly reversed in the spending review with the fuel payments restored but taxed as income for better-off silver surfers. Reeves then created a new rod for her back in her first Budget in October. The impact of £40billion of tax increases, fuelled by the debilitating rise in National Insurance Contributions, caused a growth stammer. The fundamental error was in shaping the fiscal rules. Taxation and current spending would be broadly balanced. The Government would only borrow for investment. But by leaving herself so little room for error on current spending, £10bn of headroom, the Chancellor sprung a trap. She ignored Harold Macmillan's dictum, 'Events, dear boy, events.' The headroom detonated another booby trap. Reeves's third intervention came in the spring. She took the axe to welfare, most notoriously to personal independence payments (PIPs) for those claiming disability benefits. It started a debate about Labour values, which has exposed Reeves to pressure to restore £3.5billion of payments to families with more than two children. Which brings us to the spending review. Any hopes that this would be the moment for Reeves to repair struggling public services have been smashed. A downgrade to the Office for Budget Responsibility's growth forecast, surging defence spending, the U-turn on winter fuel and the rocketing cost of servicing the national debt mean the envelope for current spending is negligible, with overall increases confined to 1.2 per cent or so. The joy, such as it is, will come from the capital spending plans. We had a flavour of this earlier in the week when Reeves unsheathed £15billion of transport investment across the North. One cannot but think most of these are reheated plans already announced by her predecessors. Infrastructure is critical and the Elizabeth Line in London and HS2 activity around Birmingham provide graphic evidence of how bold schemes can generate growth. But axing a supercomputer project in Edinburgh, as the Chancellor did last July, hardly speaks to UK tech ambition. In conversation at the CBI this week, Reeves described herself as a 'wise old hen' among G7 finance ministers as elections have brought newbies to the table. Her fiscal fortitude is creditable. Further tax increases, having pledged not to come back for more, would be a deception too far.

Tariff-hit steel maker Tata begs for US trade deal
Tariff-hit steel maker Tata begs for US trade deal

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Tariff-hit steel maker Tata begs for US trade deal

Britain's biggest steel maker has urged Labour to step up efforts to finalise a US trade deal as the industry remains saddled with double digit tariffs. Rajesh Nair, boss of Tata Steel UK, said a deal with Washington is needed 'as soon as possible'. There is growing frustration that an agreement made last month has yet to take effect. Additional steel and aluminium tariffs remain at 25 per cent. The UK, however, was spared a recent doubling of the rate to 50 per cent, which hit other countries. Doubt continues over whether Indian-owned Tata will benefit from either exemption. That is because it imports steel from sister companies in India and Europe for finishing in the UK. US rules state that steel must be 'melted and poured' in the country they are imported from. Nair said it was 'critical for our business that melted and poured in the UK is not a requirement to access the steel quotas in any future trade deal'.

Leading businessmen Simon Peckham urges politicians to back UK firms
Leading businessmen Simon Peckham urges politicians to back UK firms

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Leading businessmen Simon Peckham urges politicians to back UK firms

Politicians have been urged by one of Britain's leading businessmen to get behind wealth creators. As concern grows that the Government is hammering the private sector, Simon Peckham, who has made a fortune buying up and turning around industrial firms, said ministers 'should support' business. 'It would be nice if politicians understood that what [business] people are trying to do is generate wealth,' he said. 'If you don't generate wealth you don't generate tax income, and if you don't generate tax income you won't have any money to spend on causes they want to support, and which civilised countries probably should support.' Peckham is best known as the former boss of Melrose, the FTSE 100 firm which thrived by snapping up businesses under its 'buy, improve, sell' mantra. Most controversially, it took over and broke up the historic British industrial conglomerate GKN, earning opprobrium from unions and politicians. Peckham, 62, has since moved on to new venture Rosebank, which operates under the same principle and yesterday announced its first deal, the purchase of 72-year-old US firm Electrical Components International (ECI), a leading global supplier of electrical systems. Rosebank said it was raising £1.1bn to fund the deal, which it said values ECI at less than £1.5billion. The company said takeover opportunities had been 'enhanced by the turbulence of recent months' as Donald Trump's tariffs throw global trading into turmoil. Rosebank's acquisition of a US firm with more than £900m in annual revnenues represents a rare win for a UK-listed firm at a time when London's stock market is being degraded by foreign takeovers as well as the departure of many of its leading companies for New York. UK firms are being hammered by Labour's determination to saddle them with higher taxes and a raft of new workers' rights. Chancellor Rachel Reeves this week failed to rule out raising taxes further. Peckham said Rosebank would '100 per cent' remain on the UK market, adding 'we are proud to be so'. But he urged UK politicians to do more to back business.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store