TSW Commission: The tax-free lump sum on retirement should be reduced

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
52,113
Chapter 8: Taxes on Retirement Savings

8.1 The Commission recommends more comprehensive implementation of the ‘Exempt, Exempt, Taxed’ model of pension provision including recommending a meaningful reduction in the overall level of tax-free lump sum available from its current level (worth over four times average earnings). Marginal tax rates should apply on all lump sums over the tax-free threshold.
 
Here is the bit from the full report

Here is the reasoning from the full report

[After a discussion on whether tax relief on pension contributions should be changed...]
On balance, the Commission concluded that the existing approach of marginal relief was appropriate on the basis that such contributions represent a deferral of income. In addition such an approach is fair and equitable so long as pension income is fully taxed at the point of drawdown, and in the context of our recommendations on the Standard
Fund Threshold (see section 8.5.4).

8.5 COmmISSION PROPOSalS

8.5.1 Comprehensive implementation of ‘EET’

[EET is the description of a pension system which is Exempt, Exempt, Taxed. So the pension contribution is exempt from tax, the investment returns are exempt from tax but the drawdown is taxed]

Ireland is somewhat unusual in Europe in having substantial pension tax-free lump sums.146 In some countries lump sums are not permitted (Netherlands and Sweden, for example) while in others the amount of lump sum is linked to a proportion of the total pensions savings pot and it is taxed (UK, France and Belgium). Only Portugal, Malta and Ireland have some lump sum tax-free and Ireland is alone in having a monetary limit (€200,000 lifetime limit) rather than a percentage of overall final savings limit.
No beneficiary or costing data is available in the Department of Finance Tax Expenditure report for the cost of tax-free pension lump sums as it is not currently possible to disaggregate data from other non-pension lump sums. It should be noted that Revenue expenditure data from 2014 placed the annual cost of tax-free lump sums at €134
million at that time.

1663321034802.png



As can be seen from Table 17, different rules apply to the calculation of a lump sum entitlement depending on the savings vehicle, subject to an overall lifetime limit of €200,000 that encompasses all retirement lump sums paid to an individual on or after 7 December 2005. Furthermore, beneficial treatment is also provided for lump sum amounts between
€201,000 and €500,000, which are taxed at the standard rather than marginal tax rate. As indicated earlier, the exemption of significant elements of pension income from tax at the point of drawdown raises questions about the equity of the pension tax relief system as all other income from supplementary pensions is taxable at the marginal rate and subject to USC.
While the Commission recognises the role the provision of a tax-free lump sum can play in incentivising individuals to save for retirement, the Commission believes that the existing level of exemption is excessive and should be reduced. On equity grounds, the existence of a large tax-free lump sum threshold is inconsistent with the full implementation of an ‘EET’ system of tax relief and the ongoing
retention of marginal tax relief on pension contributions.

Recommendation

8.1 The Commission recommends more comprehensive implementation of the ‘Exempt, Exempt, Taxed’ model of pension provision including recommending a meaningful reduction in the overall level of tax-free lump sum available from its current level (worth over 4 times average earnings). Marginal tax rates should apply on all lump sums over the tax-free threshold.


Furthermore, the Commission also notes that there are scenarios where some individuals may receive a tax-free lump sum on departure from employment of up to €200,000 while also benefiting from a tax-free pension lump sum to the same amount. While the tax relief available on an ex-gratia lump sum may be reduced by the value of the pension lump sum from the occupational pension scheme associated with the job from which they are terminated, lump sums derived from PRSAs, RACs and other pension schemes are not currently included. The Commission suggests that such anomalies can be addressed through the introduction of a single lifetime limit to include both pension lump sums and any ex-gratia termination payments received.

Recommendation

8.2 The Commission recommends that there should be a single tax-free lump sum lifetime limit to include both pension lump sums and any ex-gratia termination payments received.
 
Last edited:
That would necessitate a reduction in the tax free element of the lump sum element of the DB pensions of State employees.
The usual bleating from the usual suspects with the usual populist response would accompany any such proposals.
 
I strongly disagree with reducing the tax-free lump sum. You can't dangle a carrot Infront of people for 40 years then pull it from then at the last second.
However, I don't think that the marginal tax rate proposal is quite as stark as Brendan outlines. It would just be that any income drawn from the pot would be taxed as income at marginal rates (20% on first 36K, 40% after that plus USC/PRSI?). To be honest, that is what I thought it currently was anyway.
 
There really is no logic to the tax-free lump sum element of our pension code.

The whole point of our pension regime is to provide a reasonable income in retirement - not to amass a tax-free lump sum.

It certainly wouldn’t suit me, but I can’t see any good arguments for the retention of the TFLS.

We really need to start thinking how we are going to equitably fund our State across generations in the face of an ageing population.
 
However, I don't think that the marginal tax rate proposal is quite as stark as Brendan outlines. It would just be that any income drawn from the pot would be taxed as income at marginal rates (20% on first 36K, 40% after that plus USC/PRSI?).
The proposal is about the taxation of the pension lump sum, not ongoing pension income.
 
There really is no logic to the tax-free lump sum element of our pension code.

The whole point of our pension regime is to provide a reasonable income in retirement - not to amass a tax-free lump sum.

It certainly wouldn’t suit me, but I can’t see any good arguments for the retention of the TFLS.

We really need to start thinking how we are going to equitably fund our State across generations in the face of an ageing population.
That's a very good point. For my own selfish reasons I'm looking forward to the tax free lump sum but (a) it's difficult to know what the rationale is for it and (b) looks like I may be disappointed anyway? :(
 
There really is no logic to the tax-free lump sum element of our pension code.

The whole point of our pension regime is to provide a reasonable income in retirement - not to amass a tax-free lump sum.
No, it's simple recognition of the reality that pensioners should not be heading into retirement with overhanging debts or similar commitments arising from the rearing of children or the maintenance of a home throughout their working lives, and that releasing a modest percentage of their accumulated pension pot upon retirement is as good a way as any of helping to minimise that nightmare scenario. The provision for it to be paid tax-free is presumably to encourage its drawdown.
 
…pensioners should not be heading into retirement with overhanging debts
Agreed.

But I don’t see why they should get a tax-free lump sum to discharge their debts.

Ultimately that forgone tax revenue will have to be funded by somebody else.
 
..pensioners should not be heading into retirement with overhanging debts
Agreed.

But I don’t see why they should get a tax-free lump sum to discharge their debts.
If you agree, what alternative policy measure(s) do you propose to ensure pensioners aren't burdened with overhanging debts in old age?
Ultimately that forgone tax revenue will have to be funded by somebody else.
Only if you contend that the State should maximise its tax revenue at all costs.
 
That's a very good point. For my own selfish reasons I'm looking forward to the tax free lump sum but (a) it's difficult to know what the rationale is for it and (b) looks like I may be disappointed anyway? :(
It's simply to allow as many government related workers as possible receive their pension lump sum tax free, they don't have to worry about balancing a one off lump sum against reducing their subsequent retirement income.

For the rest of us the tax free lump sum is just a side effect of that accommodation.
 
It certainly wouldn’t suit me, but I can’t see any good arguments for the retention of the TFLS.
I can see some merit as there are some things that are good to spend big on early in retirement before your income falls. Like a car or home renovation.

Something like 10% is more sensible. 25% is far too much and encourages people to drawn down early when really they should be availing of the returns that they'll need to live on for the next two decades.
 
There really is no logic to the tax-free lump sum element of our pension code.

The whole point of our pension regime is to provide a reasonable income in retirement - not to amass a tax-free lump sum.

It certainly wouldn’t suit me, but I can’t see any good arguments for the retention of the TFLS.
Tax free money doesn't suit you? It suits me :)

It is always harder to take something away than to give it. Look at Obamacare in the US. Obama really struggled to get it passed and it got a lot of negative press. But with the GOP in all 3 branches of the government, they couldn't get rid of it.

Good luck to the politicians who decide to get rid of it.

We really need to start thinking how we are going to equitably fund our State across generations in the face of an ageing population.

We can start by extending the age that people receive their State pension...like it had been decided years ago before it came an election issue. The way the politicians are going, our taxes are going to increase so the current generation can receive better State pensions for longer.


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
 
Back
Top