Could changes in pension tax relief potentially release funding for health and social care?

This content relates to the following topics:

Last week the Financial Times reported that the Chancellor is actively considering a radical reform of pension tax relief – an idea he trailed in last summer’s Budget. This week, Chief Executive of NHS England Simon Stevens called for a new ‘national consensus’ on a ‘properly resourced and functioning social care system’ – that would ideally be agreed in time to be a 70th birthday present for the NHS in 2018.

Meanwhile Norman Lamb, Alan Milburn and Stephen Dorrell – all respected former health ministers, and between them representing the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives – are agitating for some form of cross-party commission on future health and social care funding. A window of opportunity may be opening.

Stevens aired, obliquely, some of the recommendations from the Barker Commission’s call for a new settlement for health and social care. Some of the resources currently ‘tied up in housing, pension pots and other benefits and entitlements’ might, he suggested, be used for this along with ‘more flexibility between current disconnected funding streams for older people’. He questioned the ‘triple lock’ on pensions, and whether it might be amended. With George Osborne looking at pension tax relief – and with the government, for all its rhetoric, knowing that it did not solve the social care funding problem in November’s Spending Round – territory that has previously been off-limits might be opening up.

The ‘triple lock’ – the promise that those on the basic State Pension will always get an annual rise equivalent to the better of the increase in prices, the increase in average earnings or a minimum 2.5 per cent – will eventually go. It will disappear because over time it has a ratchet effect. If the increase in earnings is below the increase in prices, those on the basic State Pension are protected from the inflation that affects people in work. If earnings do better, State Pensioners do at least as well. And if both earnings and prices are depressed they get the minimum 2.5 per cent – as will happen this April. So over time, those on the basic State Pension do better than those in work, a position that can continue for a time, but not forever. Ending the triple lock by, say, scrapping the 2.5 per cent, would release expenditure in future that could go to health and social care, the problem being, however, that the amounts would not be very predictable. They would depend on what happened to earnings and prices over time.

Much more predictable would be big changes to pension tax relief that the Chancellor is at least contemplating. The relief, in the words of the Pensions Policy Institute (PPI), is ‘expensive, poorly targeted and does not achieve its policy objective’ – partly because it is so poorly understood. It costs around £21 billion a year. But because it is granted at the individual’s marginal rate, some 70 per cent of it goes to higher rate tax payers – ie, the more affluent. For years policy academics have argued it would be fairer and more progressive to have a single rate. A flat rate of 20 per cent, ie, standard rate tax, would save the Treasury around £12.5 billion annually, the PPI calculates – assuming no change to pension savings as a result. A 25 per cent rate – a bigger incentive for the lower paid to save than is provided by the current relief – would save around £6 billion a year. Both sums are serious money. A change like this would allow the tax relief to be presented differently – for example, ‘you save £3.00 and the government will add £1.00’. And for a Chancellor whose opening promise on austerity was that ‘We are all in this together’, it would be a very ‘One nation’ approach, even if he would face howls of protest from the better-off. The idea is not without its difficulties – not least how to apply it within the remaining defined benefit pension schemes – while its effects on pension saving, something that the government also cares about, are far from entirely predictable.

The £6 billion or even the £12 billion that could be raised from what is, in effect, a hidden tax rise on the better-off, could of course be saved. But it could also be spent. The NHS and social care have plenty of noisy neighbours available – affordable housing, schooling and infrastructure to name but a few – who would join the bidding for any cash that became available. And it is far from clear just how radical the Chancellor wants to be. But his March Budget might just offer the opportunity for a new take on the health and social care funding debate.


Pearl Baker

Independent Mental Health Advocate and Advisor/Carer,
Comment date
23 January 2016
Lets be more adventurous!

Those of us who would be willing to start contributing for our Social Care now, could start with a minimum of £2 plus £1 from the Government (in your pot) would receive tax relief, on your contribution of £2 or multiples. The contributor who paid most per month would reap most rewards (tax relief). if you require access to your Social Care Budget in the future it will be their for you.

You have to remember we have already paid tax on this Income, it would seem appropriate to receive tax relief on our contribution, as we are now 'lending' our Social Care Contribution to the Government.

The 'ring fenced' contribution will be their to grow, and use for Social Care only.

If you die without accessing your 'Social Care' budget it will go to the Government LA 'ring fenced' Social Care Budget.

The monthly contribution could be as a couple or single person.

'Innovation' a LA used a very innovative way of making money, they invested in Property 'Industrial Property' and then rented out, a very good income, just one way of making it work.

It will operate from an Inland Revenue Annual Return, just another 'column' to complete.

To make my suggestion clear, the monthly contributions are their for the Government to Invest for Social Care, however they have to ensure that the monthly contribution will be protected by a Government 'BOND' and any Interest made must be shared by all Contributors with the Government taking a percentage on the returns of the money invested.

I think this is a fare way of lending your money, receiving 'interest' on your contribution, increasing the value of your contribution, and a proportion going to the Government.

richad stroud

Wage slave,
Comment date
25 January 2016
Even more money could be diverted to reducing the budget deficit by stopping the public sector gold plated pension scheme and changing to the same contribution basis as the private sector.

Peter Dick

Comment date
25 January 2016
Alternatively, we could simply put up income tax basic and upper rates by 1% and raise £5.5 - 6bn per year.


Comment date
07 February 2016
The impact on employer's contributions is an issue (it will become more attractive to shift to a non-contributory pension) but abuse could be tackled by , for example, capping any employer annual pension contribution for an individual to a maximum of say £5,000 or the employers NI paid ( whichever is the lower). This would also help tackle the current problem of company directors and the like who receive a very large pension contribution that is disproportionate to their taxable remuneration.

Dani Kind

Comment date
08 August 2019

Worked in the Medical field for most of my adult life, grew to be an expert and worked as hard as I could. Friend of mine introduced me to IQ options worst mistake of my life, My Broker Mr Graham absolutely cunning to say the least I lost all my life savings to this crooks. To make matters worst a certain wealth recovery website offered to get me my funds, lost more money to them too. I only wanted to get what was owed to me the right way and was put in contact with ( From the beginning of my dealings with them I felt so reassuring till finally getting most of my funds back thanks again guys couldn’t help but share to others.

Add your comment