Pensions: to crystallise or not to crystallise, that is the question | 養老金:提取還是不提取,這是個問題 - FT中文網
登錄×
電子郵件/用戶名
密碼
記住我
請輸入郵箱和密碼進行綁定操作:
請輸入手機號碼,透過簡訊驗證(目前僅支援中國大陸地區的手機號):
請您閱讀我們的用戶註冊協議私隱權保護政策,點擊下方按鈕即視爲您接受。
FT英語電臺

Pensions: to crystallise or not to crystallise, that is the question
養老金:提取還是不提取,這是個問題

Some advisers are recommending their clients act now to protect against a future tax charge
一些顧問建議他們的客戶現在就採取行動,以避免未來的稅收支出。
00:00

undefined

Next week’s Budget is a reminder that chancellors can throw curveballs in the land of pensions planning. Last March, Jeremy Hunt, in a “Budget shocker”, scrapped the pensions lifetime allowance that had been introduced in 2006.

It was a welcome move because the £1,073,100 limit had penalised good investment decisions. Its removal allowed defined contribution pension investors to jettison any concerns of a tax charge should they breach the limit by picking a fast-growing fund or portfolio of shares.

It’s put a stop to the constant tweaking of the allowance, and the need to “help” people coming up against reductions. Under a horribly complex system, when the allowance fell, people could take out lifetime allowance protections that safeguarded their pension savings from penalty taxes.

Some pension providers were euphoric about the end to the lifetime allowance, perhaps anticipating the “fill your boots” impact on pensions savings among the wealthy.

Certainly, data from investment platform Hargreaves Lansdown shows people saved 18 per cent more into their self-invested personal pensions (Sipps) in this tax year up to the end of December compared with the same period the previous year. There was also a 53 per cent increase in the number of people contributing more than £60,000 (the current annual allowance), while the number contributing more than £40,000 grew three-fold.

Surprisingly, the rise in pension contributions has happened despite Labour’s instant post-2023 Budget promise to restore the lifetime allowance.

Now, less than a year from a general election and a few weeks from the end of the tax year, there’s a pressing question for wealthier pension savers of retirement age. How can they ensure excess funds (above the old maximum limit) are safe from being retested against a reintroduced lifetime allowance?

An FT Money reader got in touch. He wants to stay anonymous, so I’m going to call him Hamlet because he asks: “To crystallise or not to crystallise?”

Crystallising is the process of accessing the funds in your pension. Usually, to activate the process, you extract the first 25 per cent of the amount you hold in your pension as a tax-free lump sum. The remaining 75 per cent of your money can be drawn directly or used to buy an annuity.

Hamlet has three Sipps. One is already crystallised and big enough to use up all of his protected lifetime allowance. His two uncrystallised Sipps take him well over the old lifetime allowance.

Hamlet says: “With an impending election and the likelihood the new rules would be rolled back after the election, I think the best course of action is to crystallise the other two Sipps in April in the hope that following the election there would be no claw back of limits already taken. If I don’t do this the uncrystallised Sipps will again be above new lifetime limits and could incur higher tax in the future.”

Certainly, some advisers are recommending their clients crystallise excess funds to protect against a future tax charge, but with no guarantees. Wealth manager Tideway Wealth is advising clients in Hamlet’s position to crystallise ahead of any election and ideally before April 5. After that date there are some changes to pension death benefits which you may want to avoid by doing the crystallisation before then.

undefined

Sue Maydwell, senior wealth manager at Tideway Wealth, says: “The only disadvantage we can see is that post-crystallisation there would be no scope for a tax-free cash sum from crystallised amounts if the amount of tax-free cash allowable at any point in the future exceeded what has been taken already.” But I think it’s unlikely any government would raise the tax-free cash on pensions higher than 25 per cent.

Hamlet’s financial adviser is taking a wait-and-see approach. He’s not alone. Claire Trott, divisional director of retirement and holistic planning at St James’s Place, says: “This is a question we are asked all the time, and there isn’t a right answer as none of us have a crystal ball.”

Despite the rhetoric, it’s impossible to predict what Labour may or may not do should they get into power. The party may want to avoid a flood of NHS doctors retiring early. And could reintroducing a lifetime allowance prove too difficult? It has taken more than 100 pages of legislative change to remove it — and there’s no precedent for governments making retrospective changes to pensions.

But, in the weird world of pensions, relying on lack of precedent feels like naive denial. Tom Selby director of public policy at investment platform AJ Bell, says: “Labour could feasibly make changes to the new rules to capture any actions it feels were designed to dodge its policy intention.”

If this happened, Hamlet would not necessarily avoid a tax charge in the future.

Sir Steve Webb, partner at consultants LCP, and a former pensions minister, thinks the most likely scenario is the “scoring” of defined contribution pots which had been crystallised — perhaps especially those crystallised in the current tax year — against the reinstated lifetime allowance. Then Labour could inhibit the ability of people who had crystallised large amounts of pension wealth from undertaking further tax-privileged pension saving — even if they had crystallised their pensions at a time when there was no lifetime allowance.

The worst case for Hamlet would be if the old rules were reinstated. Ian Cook, chartered financial planner at Quilter Cheviot, warns: “You could be artificially building perceived security in your plans, only to find that you face a significant tax bill later in life.”

So perhaps Hamlet’s best course of action is to make plans based on the current legislation, while making decisions based on his personal circumstances and goals, rather than trying to second guess what a future government may or may not do, and risk a bad decision.

This may feel like a cop-out. But there have never been guarantees in pension planning.

If you’re approaching retirement age, your “pension journey could” last 20-30 years or more, so further changes to the rules are inevitable.

What’s also certain is that tweaking pensions policy means more work for financial advisers and pension schemes — putting into place complex transitional arrangements as the rules changes take time and incur costs. There may be method in this madness but it always means less money for you.

Moira O’Neill is a freelance money and investment writer. X: @MoiraONeill, Instagram @MoiraOnMoney, email: moira.o’neill@ft.com

版權聲明:本文版權歸FT中文網所有,未經允許任何單位或個人不得轉載,複製或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵權必究。

再次陷入危機的福斯汽車能走上改革之路嗎?

歐洲最大的汽車製造商正與工人和政界人士交戰,試圖渡過痛苦的電動汽車轉型期。

哈里斯的另一個大選對手:通貨膨脹

美國選民對高昂生活成本的不滿可能決定下週誰將贏得白宮。

Lex專欄:Meta和微軟透過季度理智檢查

科技巨擘今天吹捧真正的勝利,以證明明天的鉅額投資是合理的。投資者對此是支援的,但程度有限。

FT社評:英國工黨預算——雄心勃勃,前景不明

財政大臣蕾切爾•裏夫斯現在必須兌現她的投資計劃,否則稅收還將進一步增加。

Lex專欄:福斯汽車很難走出死衚衕

儘管這家汽車製造商計劃裁員和關閉工廠,但投資者的擔憂是可以理解的。

安謀如何成爲人工智慧投資熱潮中的意外贏家

這家由軟銀控股的英國晶片設計公司的股價在過去一年上漲了兩倍。但它的野心遠不止於此。
設置字型大小×
最小
較小
默認
較大
最大
分享×