Not a full state pension plus a private pension

Qyburn

Depends on how you read "increments". I was reading that as including SERPS/S2P/Protected Payment.

In context "the basic or new State Pension without any increments"

Qyburn

If they're really not going to tax the State Pension it would create all sorts of anomalies. Someone who never contracted out pays no tax. His colleague who did contract out pays tax based of the value of his SP plus contracted out pension. A couple both with SP plus drawdown pensions could alternate so each year one of them gets their SP tax free.

pinnks

Qyburn said:

Depends on how you read "increments". I was reading that as including SERPS/S2P/Protected Payment.

In context "the basic or new State Pension without any increments"

Increments is the definition in Pensions Act 2014 for the extra pension you gain through deferral.  It seems logical that those drafting that text would use the word in that context.

pinnks

Qyburn said:

If they're really not going to tax the State Pension it would create all sorts of anomalies. Someone who never contracted out pays no tax. His colleague who did contract out pays tax based of the value of his SP plus contracted out pension. A couple both with SP plus drawdown pensions could alternate so each year one of them gets their SP tax free.

I think it would be even worse than that if a person with SERPS, Protected Payment or increments would still fall within the tax net.  

Personally I think the policy is nonsense and potentially unworkable but time will tell.   

Qyburn

pinnks said:

Qyburn said:

In context "the basic or new State Pension without any increments"

Increments is the definition in Pensions Act 2014 for the extra pension you gain through deferral.  It seems logical that those drafting that text would use the word in that context.

Cheers. So that's even worse, if you take the over optimistic view that SP without increments won't be taxed at all. Take it at SPA, tax free.  Take the same entitlement later, and it's taxed.