Categories: Pensions - Retail
Topics: conservatives| Lib Dems| UK Election 2010
The chief executives of 2plan Wealth Management and Tenet Group are among the senior figures at five major financial advice firms to attack the Liberal Democrats' pension plans.
In an open letter, Chris Smallwood, chief executive at national IFA 2plan, and Simon Hudson, CEO at IFA support group Tenet, branded the party's plans to restrict tax relief on pensions to the 20% basic rate of income tax "ill-judged and irresponsible".
Smallwood and Hudson were joined as signatories by AWD Chase de Vere director Martyn Laverick, Asset Management IFA founder and director Richard Carne, and Bottriell Adams partner Gary Bottriell.
In the letter to the Sunday Telegraph, the senior figures poured scorn on the Lib Dems' proposals, saying they would also hurt those on lower and average incomes and could be the "death knell" for final salary pensions schemes.
"We believe the Liberal Democrats' [manifesto pledge] will deal a blow to our private pensions saving system every bit as damaging as Gordon Brown's decision to remove tax credits from share dividends," the letter states.
"It amounts to a tax increase on people's retirement savings of £5.5bn a year."
The Lib Dem pledge, the cornerstone of their plans to cut the deficit, would affect taxpayers earning between £43,785 and £150,000. Higher rate taxpayers currently enjoy 40% tax relief on pension payments.
But the five signatories argue the priority now is to encourage people to save for their future, "not punish them for it".
"This tax increase threatens to undermine our savings culture, and threatens to be the death knell to final-salary pensions schemes," they state.
A Lib Dem spokesman said: "Nine out of 10 people don't pay the higher rate of tax, yet those who do get almost two thirds of all the tax relief.
"The Liberal Democrats think it is fundamentally unfair that those at the top should get more relief on their pensions than everyone else."
SIR - Over the coming decades, our society will face an unprecedented increase in the number of people of pension age. This demographic change poses a huge challenge to our society. With the public finances under strain, it is more important than ever to encourage people to save for their pensions so that they can enjoy a more secure future.
As independent financial advisers, we are responsible for advising people on how they can best prepare for their retirement. As our society grows older, our country needs a well-functioning pensions market that will encourage and reward saving for everyone, providing security for our pensioners and encouraging people to prepare for their future.
We believe that the Liberal Democrats' manifesto pledge to restrict tax relief on pensions to the basic rate of income tax is particularly ill-judged and irresponsible, and will hurt people on lower and average incomes, not just those on salaries above the higher-rate threshold. It will deal a blow to our private pensions saving system every bit as damaging as Gordon Brown's decision to remove tax credits from share dividends. It amounts to a tax increase on people's retirement savings of £5.5 billion a year.
At a time when we should be encouraging people to save for their future, this tax increase threatens to undermine our savings culture, and threatens to be the death knell to final-salary pensions schemes.
Millions of people want to save for their retirement. We should encourage them to do so, not punish them for it.
Simon Hudson
CEO, Tenet Group
Gary Bottriell
Partner, Bottriell Adams
Richard Carne
Founder and Director, Asset Management IFA Ltd
Martyn Laverick
Director, AWD Chase de Vere
Chris Smallwood
CEO, 2plan
| Share | |
| Comment | Tenet and 2plan CEOs attack Lib Dem pension plans |
More pensions - retail news
Email alerts
Recommended reading
Categories
Topics
Comments
Egalitarianism
The Lib Dems are honestly trying to reduce the growing gap between rich and poor and also do something about the deficit. Labour should also adopt such constructive measures.
Posted by: Robin Bennett
Lib Dem pension plans
Excep for those in final salary schemes (or money purchase where an employer makes a decent contribution on top of the employees contribution), why should any one contribute to a pension unless they do receive 40% tax relief. The pensions industry and the government have colluded for decades in the scam to encourage lower paid individuals to pay into pensions. Any thinking person should be able to see at least half a dozen reasons NOT to put money into pensions.
Posted by: Bill Wells
They Would Say That Wouldn't They
Who are those guys kidding. Their only interests are their own. High earners and middle income earners will save for their retirement regardless. They do not need tax incentives to encourage them. Low earners and no earners are the ones who should be helped. As for their regard for final salary schemes, there are hardly any of them left anyway.
Posted by: John Smyth
Related articles
Most Read
This year we have 14 awards designed to mark out the very best products in a highly competitive and innovative market. This includes three new awards for 2011 to reflect the developments in this rapidly growing market: Best Dual/Multi-Index Product, Best Structured (Oeic) Fund and Best Structured Product Provider.
Events
Poll
|
|
Job search
Ifaonlinejobs will open the right investment career path for you. Search hundreds of vacancies on www.ifaonlinejobs.co.uk now
In Focus
We all want certainty – and when it comes to auto-enrolment, advisers and their corporate...
Viewpoints
Clients now have a growing need for choice, flexibility and transparency when it comes to...
It's really sad
That for someone like me, for whom voting liberal would be natural were their actions to match what the word liberal means. I remain unable to vote Liberal yet again becuase of an iLiberal manifesto promise. People should only be taxed once on the same income and that is ALL tax relief at 40% on pension contributions is, i.e. not taxed when earnt, taxed when drawn. I have several clients who are only occassionaly 40% tax payers and perhaps in others make a loss. As a result, the tax take against them during their lifetime would actually be higher than someone a basic rate taxpayer and higher rate taxpayer. The lifetime allowance was supposed to be the fair method of ensuring people saved, but weren't able to save excessive amounts. If they want to restrict things further, then reduce the lifetime allowance again and get rid of ALL unfunded Final Salary Schemes, don't follow through with this mad suggestion
Posted by: Phil Castle