How would a change to pension tax relief affect salary sacrifice THP

zagfles

[Deleted User] said:

zagfles said:

Exodi said:

The IFS released an article about this exact subject yesterday (well about how revenues could be raised from pension reform) the article can be read here (https://ifs.org.uk/articles/raising-revenue-reforms-pensions-taxation ) but a TL;DR summary would be:

• Capping up-front tax relief would not be sensible
  
  Instead you could:
  
  
• make pensions subject to inheritance tax
• reduce tax free lump sum ceiling to £100k
  
• reform employer pension contributions currently avoiding NI - this is essentially the main benefit of salary sacrifice.

I concur that in thinking that a fixed up-front tax relief rate would not be sensible.

If it was capped at the basic tax rate for example, but you are a 40% tax payer, you would still be paying tax on the money going in, and then be expected to pay tax again on the money when it is drawn out. The inevitable consequence being that it discourages pension saving and leads even more people to be reliant on the state to provide their retirements.

To be honest, while I agree with the IFS suggestions that these are more equitable solutions, I can't help but feel a bit resentful at the prospect of current pensioners or those nearing retirement enjoying the benefit of decades of salary sacrifice or large tax free allowances, but then raising the ladder from future generations.

Capping tax free cash would be just as complicated. You'd need transitional rules like when the LTA was reduced so people just about to retire and relying on a large lump sum eg to pay off the mortgage aren't suddenly thrown under a bus. 

They could easily see a government doing something like:

Up to £200,000 - 0%
£200,000– £300,000 - 20%
Over £300,000 marginal rate

It would also need to be bought in straightway to stop an epidemic of early crystallisation.  Someone would then have to decide on what any transitional rules should be to make it a bit more 'fair' (e.g. applying (i) from 6 April 2027 for those within two years of NRD/SRA, and (ii) from Budget day otherwise, unless the scheme administrator is already processing the crystallisation and it is paid out before 6 April 2025).  

It would completely destroy the incentive to save in the pension if the govt set a precedent that tax rules can be changed to peoples' detriment with no transitional protection, after they've saved based on current rules. That's why LTA reductions came with protections for those already above the new LTA. I don't think even this govt are that daft. 

MK62

zagfles said:

[Deleted User] said:

zagfles said:

Exodi said:

The IFS released an article about this exact subject yesterday (well about how revenues could be raised from pension reform) the article can be read here (https://ifs.org.uk/articles/raising-revenue-reforms-pensions-taxation ) but a TL;DR summary would be:

• Capping up-front tax relief would not be sensible
  
  Instead you could:
  
  
• make pensions subject to inheritance tax
• reduce tax free lump sum ceiling to £100k
  
• reform employer pension contributions currently avoiding NI - this is essentially the main benefit of salary sacrifice.

I concur that in thinking that a fixed up-front tax relief rate would not be sensible.

If it was capped at the basic tax rate for example, but you are a 40% tax payer, you would still be paying tax on the money going in, and then be expected to pay tax again on the money when it is drawn out. The inevitable consequence being that it discourages pension saving and leads even more people to be reliant on the state to provide their retirements.

To be honest, while I agree with the IFS suggestions that these are more equitable solutions, I can't help but feel a bit resentful at the prospect of current pensioners or those nearing retirement enjoying the benefit of decades of salary sacrifice or large tax free allowances, but then raising the ladder from future generations.

Capping tax free cash would be just as complicated. You'd need transitional rules like when the LTA was reduced so people just about to retire and relying on a large lump sum eg to pay off the mortgage aren't suddenly thrown under a bus. 

They could easily see a government doing something like:

Up to £200,000 - 0%
£200,000– £300,000 - 20%
Over £300,000 marginal rate

It would also need to be bought in straightway to stop an epidemic of early crystallisation.  Someone would then have to decide on what any transitional rules should be to make it a bit more 'fair' (e.g. applying (i) from 6 April 2027 for those within two years of NRD/SRA, and (ii) from Budget day otherwise, unless the scheme administrator is already processing the crystallisation and it is paid out before 6 April 2025).  

It would completely destroy the incentive to save in the pension if the govt set a precedent that tax rules can be changed to peoples' detriment with no transitional protection, after they've saved based on current rules. That's why LTA reductions came with protections for those already above the new LTA. I don't think even this govt are that daft. 

True, but I'll wager a pound to a penny that the LSA will not rise with inflation, and so will effectively be reduced over the years by fiscal drag.......just without it "appearing" to be reducing.

dunstonh

[Deleted User] said:

zagfles said:

Exodi said:

The IFS released an article about this exact subject yesterday (well about how revenues could be raised from pension reform) the article can be read here (https://ifs.org.uk/articles/raising-revenue-reforms-pensions-taxation ) but a TL;DR summary would be:

• Capping up-front tax relief would not be sensible
  
  Instead you could:
  
  
• make pensions subject to inheritance tax
• reduce tax free lump sum ceiling to £100k
  
• reform employer pension contributions currently avoiding NI - this is essentially the main benefit of salary sacrifice.

I concur that in thinking that a fixed up-front tax relief rate would not be sensible.

If it was capped at the basic tax rate for example, but you are a 40% tax payer, you would still be paying tax on the money going in, and then be expected to pay tax again on the money when it is drawn out. The inevitable consequence being that it discourages pension saving and leads even more people to be reliant on the state to provide their retirements.

To be honest, while I agree with the IFS suggestions that these are more equitable solutions, I can't help but feel a bit resentful at the prospect of current pensioners or those nearing retirement enjoying the benefit of decades of salary sacrifice or large tax free allowances, but then raising the ladder from future generations.

Capping tax free cash would be just as complicated. You'd need transitional rules like when the LTA was reduced so people just about to retire and relying on a large lump sum eg to pay off the mortgage aren't suddenly thrown under a bus. 

They could easily see a government doing something like:

Up to £200,000 - 0%
£200,000– £300,000 - 20%
Over £300,000 marginal rate

It would also need to be bought in straightway to stop an epidemic of early crystallisation.  Someone would then have to decide on what any transitional rules should be to make it a bit more 'fair' (e.g. applying (i) from 6 April 2027 for those within two years of NRD/SRA, and (ii) from Budget day otherwise, unless the scheme administrator is already processing the crystallisation and it is paid out before 6 April 2025).  

But then the counter to that is why waste the cost of legislation and industry implementation for a solution that is not far away from the current position with the LSA and could result in potentially less tax income.

zagfles

MK62 said:

zagfles said:

[Deleted User] said:

zagfles said:

Exodi said:

The IFS released an article about this exact subject yesterday (well about how revenues could be raised from pension reform) the article can be read here (https://ifs.org.uk/articles/raising-revenue-reforms-pensions-taxation ) but a TL;DR summary would be:

• Capping up-front tax relief would not be sensible
  
  Instead you could:
  
  
• make pensions subject to inheritance tax
• reduce tax free lump sum ceiling to £100k
  
• reform employer pension contributions currently avoiding NI - this is essentially the main benefit of salary sacrifice.

I concur that in thinking that a fixed up-front tax relief rate would not be sensible.

If it was capped at the basic tax rate for example, but you are a 40% tax payer, you would still be paying tax on the money going in, and then be expected to pay tax again on the money when it is drawn out. The inevitable consequence being that it discourages pension saving and leads even more people to be reliant on the state to provide their retirements.

To be honest, while I agree with the IFS suggestions that these are more equitable solutions, I can't help but feel a bit resentful at the prospect of current pensioners or those nearing retirement enjoying the benefit of decades of salary sacrifice or large tax free allowances, but then raising the ladder from future generations.

Capping tax free cash would be just as complicated. You'd need transitional rules like when the LTA was reduced so people just about to retire and relying on a large lump sum eg to pay off the mortgage aren't suddenly thrown under a bus. 

They could easily see a government doing something like:

Up to £200,000 - 0%
£200,000– £300,000 - 20%
Over £300,000 marginal rate

It would also need to be bought in straightway to stop an epidemic of early crystallisation.  Someone would then have to decide on what any transitional rules should be to make it a bit more 'fair' (e.g. applying (i) from 6 April 2027 for those within two years of NRD/SRA, and (ii) from Budget day otherwise, unless the scheme administrator is already processing the crystallisation and it is paid out before 6 April 2025).  

It would completely destroy the incentive to save in the pension if the govt set a precedent that tax rules can be changed to peoples' detriment with no transitional protection, after they've saved based on current rules. That's why LTA reductions came with protections for those already above the new LTA. I don't think even this govt are that daft. 

True, but I'll wager a pound to a penny that the LSA will not rise with inflation, and so will effectively be reduced over the years by fiscal drag.......just without it "appearing" to be reducing.

As has already been happening for a few years. Like "no increases in tax on workers", except by stealth ie frozen tax allowances/bands. But that's a bit difference to a big nominal cut. 

zagfles

[Deleted User] said:

zagfles said:

[Deleted User] said:

zagfles said:

Exodi said:

The IFS released an article about this exact subject yesterday (well about how revenues could be raised from pension reform) the article can be read here (https://ifs.org.uk/articles/raising-revenue-reforms-pensions-taxation ) but a TL;DR summary would be:

• Capping up-front tax relief would not be sensible
  
  Instead you could:
  
  
• make pensions subject to inheritance tax
• reduce tax free lump sum ceiling to £100k
  
• reform employer pension contributions currently avoiding NI - this is essentially the main benefit of salary sacrifice.

I concur that in thinking that a fixed up-front tax relief rate would not be sensible.

If it was capped at the basic tax rate for example, but you are a 40% tax payer, you would still be paying tax on the money going in, and then be expected to pay tax again on the money when it is drawn out. The inevitable consequence being that it discourages pension saving and leads even more people to be reliant on the state to provide their retirements.

To be honest, while I agree with the IFS suggestions that these are more equitable solutions, I can't help but feel a bit resentful at the prospect of current pensioners or those nearing retirement enjoying the benefit of decades of salary sacrifice or large tax free allowances, but then raising the ladder from future generations.

Capping tax free cash would be just as complicated. You'd need transitional rules like when the LTA was reduced so people just about to retire and relying on a large lump sum eg to pay off the mortgage aren't suddenly thrown under a bus. 

They could easily see a government doing something like:

Up to £200,000 - 0%
£200,000– £300,000 - 20%
Over £300,000 marginal rate

It would also need to be bought in straightway to stop an epidemic of early crystallisation.  Someone would then have to decide on what any transitional rules should be to make it a bit more 'fair' (e.g. applying (i) from 6 April 2027 for those within two years of NRD/SRA, and (ii) from Budget day otherwise, unless the scheme administrator is already processing the crystallisation and it is paid out before 6 April 2025).  

It would completely destroy the incentive to save in the pension if the govt set a precedent that tax rules can be changed to peoples' detriment with no transitional protection, after they've saved based on current rules. That's why LTA reductions came with protections for those already above the new LTA. I don't think even this govt are that daft. 

So let's pretend that the government wants to save some money in relation to the tax and NIC relief on pensions.  What could they do to raise revenue that would not "destroy the incentive to save"?

Something that doesn't change the rules retrospectively. They could do lots which would save money and perhaps reduce the incentive to save, or increase it for some and reduce it for others. Such as flat rate relief going forwards etc.

But to say to people "oh you know that £250k tax free lump sum you were relying on to pay off your mortgage next year, you can't now have it" would destroy the incentive to save. People pay money into a pension with the expectation they can access it subject to current rules, perhaps with minor tweaks. To change those rules in a way that massively adversely affects people will mean people no longer trust pensions. Why would they? 

MK62

Effectively, it has.......the max lump sum you could take in 2020 was £268275 (without protections).......it's still the same today......so it's effectively been cut, in real terms, by about 20% (CPI).

zagfles

[Deleted User] said:

dunstonh said:

[Deleted User] said:

zagfles said:

Exodi said:

The IFS released an article about this exact subject yesterday (well about how revenues could be raised from pension reform) the article can be read here (https://ifs.org.uk/articles/raising-revenue-reforms-pensions-taxation ) but a TL;DR summary would be:

• Capping up-front tax relief would not be sensible
  
  Instead you could:
  
  
• make pensions subject to inheritance tax
• reduce tax free lump sum ceiling to £100k
  
• reform employer pension contributions currently avoiding NI - this is essentially the main benefit of salary sacrifice.

I concur that in thinking that a fixed up-front tax relief rate would not be sensible.

If it was capped at the basic tax rate for example, but you are a 40% tax payer, you would still be paying tax on the money going in, and then be expected to pay tax again on the money when it is drawn out. The inevitable consequence being that it discourages pension saving and leads even more people to be reliant on the state to provide their retirements.

To be honest, while I agree with the IFS suggestions that these are more equitable solutions, I can't help but feel a bit resentful at the prospect of current pensioners or those nearing retirement enjoying the benefit of decades of salary sacrifice or large tax free allowances, but then raising the ladder from future generations.

Capping tax free cash would be just as complicated. You'd need transitional rules like when the LTA was reduced so people just about to retire and relying on a large lump sum eg to pay off the mortgage aren't suddenly thrown under a bus. 

They could easily see a government doing something like:

Up to £200,000 - 0%
£200,000– £300,000 - 20%
Over £300,000 marginal rate

It would also need to be bought in straightway to stop an epidemic of early crystallisation.  Someone would then have to decide on what any transitional rules should be to make it a bit more 'fair' (e.g. applying (i) from 6 April 2027 for those within two years of NRD/SRA, and (ii) from Budget day otherwise, unless the scheme administrator is already processing the crystallisation and it is paid out before 6 April 2025).  

But then the counter to that is why waste the cost of legislation and industry implementation for a solution that is not far away from the current position with the LSA and could result in potentially less tax income.

I love it!  Exagerating a little: "This is so trivial it won't outweigh the implementation costs" to "This will destroy pensions". 

Either way (or both) a pretty daft idea then 

Just to be clear though, I didn't imagine that someone taking out more than the current limits would save tax. So if someone didn't have any protections and withdrew 100% of their £1m pension pot, everything above £250k would be taxed as marginal rates (as now).  The illustrative higher limits are for people with various protections and an attempt to reduce "unfair" accusations. If a government wanted to, it didn't care about "unfair" it would be way easier to reduce the LSA for all (including those with protections).

So save a trivial amount by setting a precedent that the tax free amount can be reduced retrospectively and have people wondering "well they reduced it to £200k, what next £100k, £50k, let's cash in the lot and not bother with pensions". 

Lose lose. Political suicide for trivial gain. Like with the LTA reductions, if it is done, it will almost certainly come with protections for people already over the new limit. 

Triumph13

zagfles said:

Triumph13 said:

zagfles said:

Exodi said:

The IFS released an article about this exact subject yesterday (well about how revenues could be raised from pension reform) the article can be read here (https://ifs.org.uk/articles/raising-revenue-reforms-pensions-taxation ) but a TL;DR summary would be:

• Capping up-front tax relief would not be sensible
  
  Instead you could:
  
  
• make pensions subject to inheritance tax
• reduce tax free lump sum ceiling to £100k
  
• reform employer pension contributions currently avoiding NI - this is essentially the main benefit of salary sacrifice.

I concur that in thinking that a fixed up-front tax relief rate would not be sensible.

If it was capped at the basic tax rate for example, but you are a 40% tax payer, you would still be paying tax on the money going in, and then be expected to pay tax again on the money when it is drawn out. The inevitable consequence being that it discourages pension saving and leads even more people to be reliant on the state to provide their retirements.

To be honest, while I agree with the IFS suggestions that these are more equitable solutions, I can't help but feel a bit resentful at the prospect of current pensioners or those nearing retirement enjoying the benefit of decades of salary sacrifice or large tax free allowances, but then raising the ladder from future generations.

Capping tax free cash would be just as complicated. You'd need transitional rules like when the LTA was reduced so people just about to retire and relying on a large lump sum eg to pay off the mortgage aren't suddenly thrown under a bus. 

If a flat rate was introduced it would almost certainly be over 20%, probably 25% or 30%, I even read somewhere that 33% was revenue neutral. So anyone paying HR tax would still get more tax relief than the tax they pay on drawing provided they're BR taxpayers in retirement. And if not, it would act as a similar disincentive and penalty to the LTA, and on a similar level of pension (~£40k pension plus state pension to be a HR taxpayer in retirement, similar to a SWR from a £million pot). 

This.  33% flat relief and making employer's DC contributions a taxable and NI'able benefit would nicely do the job of incentivising people who might otherwise be a burden on the state, whilst avoiding giving most of the tax relief to the better paid, who should really be able to provide for their retirement without too much help from HMRC.  I don't see a problem with just ignoring DB schemes - other than to the extent they use up your AA.  It might also be worth establishing a right to have your pension contributions as pay instead, if you can demonstrate you have sufficient existing provision, to avoid disincentives for the higher paid to keep working once they were in HR tax in retirement territory.  And yes, I do realise it's easy for me to say that after having benefited from lots of 40% relief in the past, but I felt the same at the time.

You don't see a problem with "ignoring" DB pensions but making DC pensions a taxable/NI'able benefit? So people with one type of pension get taxed on the benefit but people with another type don't? 

I see no problem with that at all as they are completely different beasts and trying to treat them 'the same' just leads to unnecessary complications in pension legislation.  A DB scheme is a promise to pay an income in the future, and that income will be taxed perfectly adequately at the time.  I see no need to differentiate between how you incentivise either higher or lower paid employees to join the scheme.  You just need to not waste money on letting the well paid DB owners cash in on personal pensions too - hence the need to include them in the AA.  Most importantly, there is little or no scope for people to actively use them to minimise the tax they pay.

The rates I suggested above would still give people in DC schemes a good incentive to pay in if their income in retirement will be taxed at basic rate.  It just shifts the balance of the incentive away from the better paid and towards the lower paid.  If anyone is going to be a higher rate taxpayer in retirement, there is no possible public policy reason to want to help them save more.

zagfles

Triumph13 said:

zagfles said:

Triumph13 said:

zagfles said:

Exodi said:

The IFS released an article about this exact subject yesterday (well about how revenues could be raised from pension reform) the article can be read here (https://ifs.org.uk/articles/raising-revenue-reforms-pensions-taxation ) but a TL;DR summary would be:

• Capping up-front tax relief would not be sensible
  
  Instead you could:
  
  
• make pensions subject to inheritance tax
• reduce tax free lump sum ceiling to £100k
  
• reform employer pension contributions currently avoiding NI - this is essentially the main benefit of salary sacrifice.

I concur that in thinking that a fixed up-front tax relief rate would not be sensible.

If it was capped at the basic tax rate for example, but you are a 40% tax payer, you would still be paying tax on the money going in, and then be expected to pay tax again on the money when it is drawn out. The inevitable consequence being that it discourages pension saving and leads even more people to be reliant on the state to provide their retirements.

To be honest, while I agree with the IFS suggestions that these are more equitable solutions, I can't help but feel a bit resentful at the prospect of current pensioners or those nearing retirement enjoying the benefit of decades of salary sacrifice or large tax free allowances, but then raising the ladder from future generations.

Capping tax free cash would be just as complicated. You'd need transitional rules like when the LTA was reduced so people just about to retire and relying on a large lump sum eg to pay off the mortgage aren't suddenly thrown under a bus. 

If a flat rate was introduced it would almost certainly be over 20%, probably 25% or 30%, I even read somewhere that 33% was revenue neutral. So anyone paying HR tax would still get more tax relief than the tax they pay on drawing provided they're BR taxpayers in retirement. And if not, it would act as a similar disincentive and penalty to the LTA, and on a similar level of pension (~£40k pension plus state pension to be a HR taxpayer in retirement, similar to a SWR from a £million pot). 

This.  33% flat relief and making employer's DC contributions a taxable and NI'able benefit would nicely do the job of incentivising people who might otherwise be a burden on the state, whilst avoiding giving most of the tax relief to the better paid, who should really be able to provide for their retirement without too much help from HMRC.  I don't see a problem with just ignoring DB schemes - other than to the extent they use up your AA.  It might also be worth establishing a right to have your pension contributions as pay instead, if you can demonstrate you have sufficient existing provision, to avoid disincentives for the higher paid to keep working once they were in HR tax in retirement territory.  And yes, I do realise it's easy for me to say that after having benefited from lots of 40% relief in the past, but I felt the same at the time.

You don't see a problem with "ignoring" DB pensions but making DC pensions a taxable/NI'able benefit? So people with one type of pension get taxed on the benefit but people with another type don't? 

I see no problem with that at all as they are completely different beasts and trying to treat them 'the same' just leads to unnecessary complications in pension legislation.  A DB scheme is a promise to pay an income in the future, and that income will be taxed perfectly adequately at the time.  I see no need to differentiate between how you incentivise either higher or lower paid employees to join the scheme.  You just need to not waste money on letting the well paid DB owners cash in on personal pensions too - hence the need to include them in the AA.  Most importantly, there is little or no scope for people to actively use them to minimise the tax they pay.

The rates I suggested above would still give people in DC schemes a good incentive to pay in if their income in retirement will be taxed at basic rate.  It just shifts the balance of the incentive away from the better paid and towards the lower paid.  If anyone is going to be a higher rate taxpayer in retirement, there is no possible public policy reason to want to help them save more.

Can I set up my own DB scheme? I promise to pay myself 1/60th of my final salary for every year I contribute, for the rest of my life once I've retired. I'll engage an actuary to calculate how much I need to contribute to achieve that. Then ask my employer to pay the necessary amount into it and lower my salary by that amount. And so I get full marginal tax relief plus NI relief no matter what my tax rate is, right? 

JoeCrystal

zagfles said:

Triumph13 said:

zagfles said:

Triumph13 said:

zagfles said:

Exodi said:

The IFS released an article about this exact subject yesterday (well about how revenues could be raised from pension reform) the article can be read here (https://ifs.org.uk/articles/raising-revenue-reforms-pensions-taxation ) but a TL;DR summary would be:

• Capping up-front tax relief would not be sensible
  
  Instead you could:
  
  
• make pensions subject to inheritance tax
• reduce tax free lump sum ceiling to £100k
  
• reform employer pension contributions currently avoiding NI - this is essentially the main benefit of salary sacrifice.

I concur that in thinking that a fixed up-front tax relief rate would not be sensible.

If it was capped at the basic tax rate for example, but you are a 40% tax payer, you would still be paying tax on the money going in, and then be expected to pay tax again on the money when it is drawn out. The inevitable consequence being that it discourages pension saving and leads even more people to be reliant on the state to provide their retirements.

To be honest, while I agree with the IFS suggestions that these are more equitable solutions, I can't help but feel a bit resentful at the prospect of current pensioners or those nearing retirement enjoying the benefit of decades of salary sacrifice or large tax free allowances, but then raising the ladder from future generations.

Capping tax free cash would be just as complicated. You'd need transitional rules like when the LTA was reduced so people just about to retire and relying on a large lump sum eg to pay off the mortgage aren't suddenly thrown under a bus. 

If a flat rate was introduced it would almost certainly be over 20%, probably 25% or 30%, I even read somewhere that 33% was revenue neutral. So anyone paying HR tax would still get more tax relief than the tax they pay on drawing provided they're BR taxpayers in retirement. And if not, it would act as a similar disincentive and penalty to the LTA, and on a similar level of pension (~£40k pension plus state pension to be a HR taxpayer in retirement, similar to a SWR from a £million pot). 

This.  33% flat relief and making employer's DC contributions a taxable and NI'able benefit would nicely do the job of incentivising people who might otherwise be a burden on the state, whilst avoiding giving most of the tax relief to the better paid, who should really be able to provide for their retirement without too much help from HMRC.  I don't see a problem with just ignoring DB schemes - other than to the extent they use up your AA.  It might also be worth establishing a right to have your pension contributions as pay instead, if you can demonstrate you have sufficient existing provision, to avoid disincentives for the higher paid to keep working once they were in HR tax in retirement territory.  And yes, I do realise it's easy for me to say that after having benefited from lots of 40% relief in the past, but I felt the same at the time.

You don't see a problem with "ignoring" DB pensions but making DC pensions a taxable/NI'able benefit? So people with one type of pension get taxed on the benefit but people with another type don't? 

I see no problem with that at all as they are completely different beasts and trying to treat them 'the same' just leads to unnecessary complications in pension legislation.  A DB scheme is a promise to pay an income in the future, and that income will be taxed perfectly adequately at the time.  I see no need to differentiate between how you incentivise either higher or lower paid employees to join the scheme.  You just need to not waste money on letting the well paid DB owners cash in on personal pensions too - hence the need to include them in the AA.  Most importantly, there is little or no scope for people to actively use them to minimise the tax they pay.

The rates I suggested above would still give people in DC schemes a good incentive to pay in if their income in retirement will be taxed at basic rate.  It just shifts the balance of the incentive away from the better paid and towards the lower paid.  If anyone is going to be a higher rate taxpayer in retirement, there is no possible public policy reason to want to help them save more.

Can I set up my own DB scheme? I promise to pay myself 1/60th of my final salary for every year I contribute, for the rest of my life once I've retired. I'll engage an actuary to calculate how much I need to contribute to achieve that. Then ask my employer to pay the necessary amount into it and lower my salary by that amount. And so I get full marginal tax relief plus NI relief no matter what my tax rate is, right? 

That might be quite expensive!!! Is it even possible to set up a DB pension scheme these days? They are dying breed after all.