logo
Why isn't 8% of my salary going into my pension like it's meant to? STEVE WEBB replies

Why isn't 8% of my salary going into my pension like it's meant to? STEVE WEBB replies

Daily Mail​01-06-2025

At my place of work, a big retail chain, the agreement for workplace pension contributions is 8 per cent, including 4 per cent from the employee.
I work in the warehouse as a warehouse operator (not management).
When I questioned HR on why 4 per cent of my wage was not being taken out, I was informed that there is a £480 (per 4 weeks) threshold and that the pension contributions start after this £480.
Whenever I read up on work place pension contributions, I see it stated about the minimum 8 per cent but in reality this not correct, due to this threshold figure.
My questions are: why is 8 per cent given as a minimum, and why and when did the £480 threshold come into effect?
Steve Webb replies: The often-quoted figure of 8 per cent minimum workplace pension contributions is, as you rightly say, not quite what it seems.
I'm happy to explain what is going on, why it was set up in this way and how it might change in future.
To understand what is going on, it's worth going back to basics about what pensions are trying to achieve.
One of the main reasons why we have a pension system is to help ensure that people's standard of living does not drop sharply when they no longer have a wage.
To achieve this, we often talk about a target, for people on modest incomes, of securing around two thirds of pre-retirement income once you stop working.
People should not need 100 per cent of their pre-retirement income because they typically no longer have 'working age' costs such as mortgage, travel-to-work or childcare costs, and also no longer pay National Insurance on their income.
But a target of around two thirds would enable most people to enjoy a similar standard of living when retired to the standard they were used to when in work.
The next thing is to look at how much of this will come from the state pension.
As a very rough benchmark, the new state pension will replace a little under one third of the average worker's wage.
This means that they need a similar amount from a private pension to bring them up to the two thirds target.
When automatic enrolment was being designed, it was assumed that the first slice of earnings was fully replaced by the state pension and that what was needed on top of this was a percentage of the 'next slice' of earnings.
For this reason, when the law was written to require workers and firms to make pension contributions at a set percentage rate, this percentage was applied to earnings above a floor, currently £6,240 per year.
Earnings above this level (up to a ceiling of £50,270) are described as 'qualifying earnings', and the mandatory 5 per cent from the employee (or 4 per cent net of tax relief) and 3 per cent from the employer are applied to this band.
I should stress that we are talking here about the legal minimum rates of contribution and that many employers and workers do more than this, including some who apply contributions from the first pound of earnings, not just on 'qualifying' earnings.
Over time there has been growing concern over this system, particularly because of the impact on lower earners.
To give an example, for someone who works part-time and earns (say) £12,480 – double the floor for qualifying earnings- the mandatory pension saving rate is applied to just half of their wage. By contrast someone working full time on £31,200 – five times the floor – is making contributions based on four fifths of their total wage.
In response to this, a Government review of automatic enrolment published back in 2017 recommended that the starting point for contributions should be reduced to zero, so that the 8 per cent headline figure would apply to all earnings up to the ceiling, currently £50,270.
Despite the general consensus about this recommendation, nothing has so far changed. In the last parliament a law was passed which paves the way for this change, but it has yet to be implemented.
Unfortunately, it seems that progress on this front is probably now further away than it has ever been.
The reason for this is that any widening of the band of 'qualifying earnings' would cost both workers and employers more.
With concerns over an ongoing 'cost of living' crisis for many lower paid workers, and with a very substantial increase in employer National Insurance in the Autumn 2024 Budget, there is very little appetite in Government for further measures that would hit paypackets or employer costs.
In short, therefore, although we urgently need to get more money going into pensions, the chances of reform any time soon look very small.
The one glimmer of hope is that the Government is expected shortly to announce the second phase of its major review of pensions, and this will include the adequacy of existing pension saving rates.
It is possible that such a review will eventually (again) recommend applying mandatory contributions to the first pound of earnings, not just those above a floor.
But, even if it did so, I suspect that the implementation process would be protracted and could even fall outside the current parliament.
Ask Steve Webb a pension question
Former pensions minister Steve Webb is This Is Money's agony uncle.
He is ready to answer your questions, whether you are still saving, in the process of stopping work, or juggling your finances in retirement.
Steve left the Department for Work and Pensions after the May 2015 election. He is now a partner at actuary and consulting firm Lane Clark & Peacock.
If you would like to ask Steve a question about pensions, please email him at pensionquestions@thisismoney.co.uk.
Steve will do his best to reply to your message in a forthcoming column, but he won't be able to answer everyone or correspond privately with readers. Nothing in his replies constitutes regulated financial advice. Published questions are sometimes edited for brevity or other reasons.
Please include a daytime contact number with your message - this will be kept confidential and not used for marketing purposes.
If Steve is unable to answer your question, you can also contact MoneyHelper, a Government-backed organisation which gives free assistance on pensions to the public. It can be found here and its number is 0800 011 3797.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Starmer: BBC must explain how ‘appalling' anti-IDF ‘hate speech' was aired
Starmer: BBC must explain how ‘appalling' anti-IDF ‘hate speech' was aired

The Independent

time33 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Starmer: BBC must explain how ‘appalling' anti-IDF ‘hate speech' was aired

Sir Keir Starmer has demanded the BBC explain how 'appalling' chants of "death to the IDF" were broadcast as part of its coverage of Glastonbury. Police are assessing footage of sets by Bob Vylan, who led crowds in chants of 'free, free Palestine ' and 'death, death to the IDF', the Israeli Defence Force, and Irish rap trio Kneecap, who suggested fans 'start a riot' outside one of the band's upcoming court appearance. The prime minister said: 'There is no excuse for this kind of appalling hate speech... The BBC needs to explain how these scenes came to be broadcast.' The Independent understands the row is expected to discussed when MPs on the Commons culture committee meet on Tuesday, raising the spectre that BBC bosses, such as the director general Tim Davie, could be called to give evidence to Parliament. The culture secretary Lisa Nandy has spoken to Mr Davie about Bob Vylan's performance. Sir Keir added: 'I said that Kneecap should not be given a platform and that goes for any other performers making threats or inciting violence.' Health secretary Wes Streeting denounced the scenes as 'appalling' and said 'the BBC and Glastonbury have got questions to answer about how we saw such a spectacle on our screens." On social media, the Israeli Embassy said it was "deeply disturbed by the inflammatory and hateful rhetoric expressed on stage at the Glastonbury Festival". But, in response Mr Streeting also told the Israeli government to get its 'own house in order" and take violence against Palestinians more seriously. The shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately said the BBC should have cut the live feed for Bob Vylan's performance. 'I think if you were in the BBC and seeing that you were broadcasting that to the nation, that can't be the right thing,' she said. 'I mean, yes, I believe in free speech, but that was incitement to violence. It was incitement to kill. That is not something that we support in this country. And I think the BBC should have shifted to something else.' Former Conservative culture secretary Lucy Frazer said the BBC 'failed in its responsibility to the licence fee payer', while ex-BBC executive and presenter Roger Bolton told Times Radio the channel "should have cut away" from the performance and "cancelled the broadcast" after the chants of "death to the IDF". Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called the scenes at Glastonbury "grotesque", writing on X: "Glorifying violence against Jews isn't edgy. The West is playing with fire if we allow this sort of behaviour to go unchecked." A BBC spokesperson said: "Some of the comments made during Bob Vylan's set were deeply offensive. "During this live stream on iPlayer, which reflected what was happening on stage, a warning was issued on screen about the very strong and discriminatory language. We have no plans to make the performance available on demand." Glastonbury Festival said it was "appalled'' by the actions of Bob Vylan, adding: "Their chants very much crossed a line and we are urgently reminding everyone involved in the production of the festival that there is no place at Glastonbury for antisemitism, hate speech or incitement to violence.'' Kneecap, from Belfast, hit the headlines in recent weeks after Liam Og O hAnnaidh, who performs under the name Mo Chara, was charged with a terror offence. Discussing his bandmate's forthcoming court date, Naoise O Caireallain, who performs under the name Moglai Bap, said they would "start a riot outside the courts", before clarifying: "No riots, just love and support, and support for Palestine". In the run-up to the festival, several politicians called for the group to be removed from the line-up, including Sir Keir, who said their performance would not be "appropriate". During the performance, Caireallain said: "The prime minister of your country, not mine, said he didn't want us to play, so f*** Keir Starmer." Asked about the Israel embassy's response to chants at Glastonbury, Mr Streeting added that he would 'say to the Israeli embassy, get your own house in order in terms of the conduct of your own citizens and the settlers in the West Bank. "I think there's a serious point there by the Israeli embassy I take seriously. I wish they'd take the violence of their own citizens towards Palestinians more seriously." He said what people should be talking about in the context of Israel and Gaza is the humanitarian catastrophe and the fact that Israeli settlers attacked a Christian village this week. He added: "All life is sacred. And I find it pretty revolting we've got to a stage in this conflict where you're supposed to sort of cheer on one side or the other like it's a football team."

Keir Starmer's plan to win back ‘authoritarian-leaning' voters
Keir Starmer's plan to win back ‘authoritarian-leaning' voters

Times

time34 minutes ago

  • Times

Keir Starmer's plan to win back ‘authoritarian-leaning' voters

Sir Keir Starmer wants to win back 'authoritarian-leaning' voters by ramping up Labour's messaging on tackling migration and crime. Downing Street strategists have drawn up plans to restore trust in politics among two groups of people identified as 'grafting realists' and 'striving moderates'. The former are largely disengaged with political news, but likely to live in social housing and receive benefits, meaning they have often have direct contact with the government. According to official documents seen by The Times, these voters have lower than average levels of trust in politicians. Internal polling commissioned by Downing Street said these 'grafting realists', who make up about 14 per cent of the population, exhibit 'authoritarian-leaning views, particularly around crime and immigration'. Guidance drawn up by the Cabinet Office's New Media Unit suggests that this group, mostly female and with an average age of 45, are more likely to get their news online or from social media, although a notable portion 'avoid the news due to anxiety'. It says: 'They are more disengaged with the news, politics and current affairs than average, see politicians and the media as more of a force for bad than for good, and feel the truth may be being hidden from them.' The strategy team, launched by No 10 last year, recommends advertising in supermarkets, on buses and through social media influencers to target this group. Topics such as 'controlling immigration' and 'tackling crime' should be prioritised, it adds. • Keir Starmer on the benefits U-turn and his toughest week yet The second group being targeted by Starmer are known in No 10 as 'striving moderates'. With an average age of 44 and likely to have children, they are 'slightly more' trusting of the government but despondent about their own prospects, and also make up 14 per cent of the population. According to the guidance: 'This segment are more pessimistic than optimistic about their own future and are the most likely of all segments to feel powerless to change their own lives. Despite this, they feel more positively towards politicians and pay higher levels of attention to the news, politics and current affairs than average. Overall, they hold moderate political views.' Migration is identified as an important issue for 'authoritarian-leaning' voters TIMES PHOTOGRAPHER JACK HILL Prioritising evidence of action on plans to build 1.5 million homes is advised. Martin Lewis's Money Saving Expert website and the advice forum Mumsnet are given as examples of 'how to reach' the second group of voters, as well as traditional newspapers, TV and radio news. • No 10 seeks influencers to spread Starmer's word on social media The strategy is a government one being implemented by civil servants, rather than overtly political. However, Labour insiders said it was crucial to their plans for the next election as they aim to restore trust in the government to deliver on its promises and see off the threat of Nigel Farage's Reform party, who they see as 'populist'. Last week Starmer admitted that his first year in office has been blighted by a struggle to sell his plans to voters. 'We haven't always told our story as well as we should,' he told Sky News during a trip to the G7 summit in Canada.

As a visibly physically disabled MP, my view on the welfare bill is clear: we need a reset and fast
As a visibly physically disabled MP, my view on the welfare bill is clear: we need a reset and fast

The Guardian

time39 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

As a visibly physically disabled MP, my view on the welfare bill is clear: we need a reset and fast

In March 2020, when the Conservative government looked like an outlier in appearing to pursue a Covid strategy centring on herd immunity, for the first time in my life I felt raw, hot fear. Thinking of my toddler and what might happen if I caught coronavirus and was treated under the then Nice guidelines 'frailty' score was too much. I sobbed deeply. After 10 years of austerity, I knew then that disabled people would pay an enormous price for the pandemic thanks to the government's handling of it. Disabled people did: almost 60% of Covid-related deaths involved disabled people in that first wave. I vowed then that I would do all I could to use my skills and experiences of 20 years working in disability law and policy to deliver a country that treats disabled people with dignity and respect. Five years later, I am one of the only visibly physically disabled members of parliament. I was proud to be elected last year as the first person to have grown up in my constituency to go on to represent it in parliament for more than a century. I am proud, too, that Labour's manifesto committed to championing the rights of disabled people, and to the principle of working with disabled people to ensure our views and voices are at the heart of all we do. Consequently, since April, I have been engaging relentlessly with government, at the very highest level, to change its proposals as set out in the universal credit and personal independence payment bill. I made it clear from the start I could not support the proposals on personal independence payments (Pip). Pip is an in-work benefit, designed to ensure disabled people can live independently. There are 4 million disabled people in poverty in the UK. As a matter of conscience, I could not support measures that would push 250,000 disabled people, including 50,000 children, into poverty. Nor could I accept proposals that used a points system, under current descriptors, that would exclude eligibility for those who cannot put on their underwear, prosthetic limbs or shoes without support. The concessions now announced are significant, including that all recipients of Pip who currently receive it will continue to do so. I know this will be an enormous relief for many of my nearly 6,000 constituents in receipt of Pip and for disabled people across the country. However, I will continue working, as I have done from the beginning, to look at these concessions carefully against the evidence on the impact upon disabled people, including my constituents, and disabled people's organisations. Fundamentally, I will be looking for further reassurances that the detail will fulfil Labour's manifesto commitments to disabled people. The social model of disability must be central to this – removing barriers to our inclusion in society. Proposals must take a mission-led approach across all five missions to break down barriers to opportunity for disabled people. I hope to see three things from government, embedded in the text of the amendments, if the bill reaches the report stage. First, the review being led by Stephen Timms, the minister for social security and disability, must not be performative. The government must not make the same mistake twice. I strongly recommend bringing in a disabled expert on equality and employment law, such as Prof Anna Lawson at the University of Leeds, to support this work. Second, the government must consult disabled people over the summer to understand the impact of the proposed changes from November 2026 on future claimants. These must mitigate risks of discrimination for those current recipients with similar disabilities and against pushing new disabled claimants into poverty after November 2026. In doing so, it must produce an impact assessment that also reflects the impact of unmet need for future recipients on health and social care services, and clarifies the application of new criteria on those receiving Pip if they get reassessed. Third, growth must mean inclusive growth. In implementing the £1bn employment, health and skills support programme, there needs to be a clear target for closing the disability employment gap. Importantly, there needs to be a commitment to a sector-by-sector strategy on closing this gap and a skills training strategy for the employment support workers enabling disabled people into work. These approaches outperform cuts or sanctions in getting disabled people into sustainable employment. This matters. The Conservatives left us with a pitiful 29% employment gap and 17% pay gap for disabled people. The Labour government has an opportunity to bring in a new era of policymaking for disabled people that takes a laser focus in closing this gap. The disability sector believes that this can be reduced by 14%; generating £17.2bn for the exchequer. We must seize this moment to do things differently and move beyond the damaging rhetoric and disagreements of recent weeks. In line with the prime minister's statement that reform should be implemented with Labour values of fairness, a reset requires a shift of emphasis to enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential. I will continue to engage with government and disabled people's organisations, to fight for a country that treats disabled people with dignity and respect. Marie Tidball is Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism and co-chair of the disability parliamentary Labour party Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store