It is a truth universally acknowledged that turkeys do not vote for Christmas. And here we are as an example, it appears that Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, ensconced in their gold-plated public sector pension schemes—luxuriously underwritten by the humble taxpayer—have no qualms when it comes to carving up the private sector. Indeed, the Chancellor’s fiscal agenda has evolved into a masterclass in redistribution, albeit of the rather selective variety. As she scours the nation for revenue, the axe has fallen upon business owners, farmers, pensioners, and savers, while the Government’s own pension largesse remains conspicuously untouched.
A Taxation Onslaught, Disguised as Fiscal Prudence
The measures enacted under Reeves’ stewardship read like a veritable manifesto for wealth attrition. The VAT imposition on private school fees? A punitive strike against aspirational parents. The inheritance tax recalibration for farmers? A thinly veiled assault on intergenerational landowners. The inclusion of private pensions in the inheritance tax net? A brazen reversal of previous assurances. And now, with a perverse sense of irony, a proposal to raid cash ISAs, a haven for the nation’s prudent savers, ensuring that no corner of financial self-sufficiency remains unscathed.
One cannot help but admire the sheer artistry of this approach. It is a redistributionist sleight of hand wherein those who have scrimped and saved find themselves subsidising those who have done neither. Meanwhile, the £1.415 trillion public sector pension deficit—a sum so vast it defies comprehension—persists, protected by the very same officials who profess a commitment to ‘fairness’.
The Public Sector Pension Deficit: An Inconvenient Reality
Public sector pensions, those bastions of fiscal irresponsibility, continue to enjoy an unparalleled degree of immunity from reform. Unlike the private sector, which must contend with the vagaries of investment returns and economic downturns, these schemes offer an unfettered, taxpayer-backed guarantee.
The actuarial gymnastics that led to the ‘reduction’ of this deficit from £2.639 trillion to £1.415 trillion is nothing short of alchemy, predicated on an arbitrary recalibration of discount rates rather than any substantive reduction in liabilities. The Treasury may congratulate itself on this paper exercise, but the cold reality remains: these pensions are unfunded, meaning that the bill is merely being deferred to future generations. In other words, the taxpayer—present and unborn—remains the eternal underwriter of an unsustainable indulgence.
The Burden on the Private Sector
The consequences of this fiscal myopia are stark. The working-age population, already taxed at historic highs, faces a future in which they must shoulder the pension obligations of an ever-expanding retired class, all while their own retirement prospects diminish.
Rising tax burdens ensure that those industrious enough to accrue wealth see their rewards siphoned away.
Public spending constraints guarantee that essential services, from healthcare to infrastructure, suffer under the weight of pension commitments.
Intergenerational inequity means that younger workers will pay more for a system that will afford them far less generosity in return.
Macroeconomic instability ensures that Britain’s ability to compete globally is persistently undermined by an insatiable welfare state.
And yet, while entrepreneurs shutter their businesses and savers liquidate their holdings in frustration, the gilded coterie of civil servants and politicians remain unaffected—protected by a pension structure whose largesse is underwritten by the very people they now tax with impunity.
A System Designed to Fail
The true scandal is not merely that these policies are ruinous, but that they are executed with such unerring hypocrisy. For decades, Britons were encouraged to take responsibility for their financial futures—investing in pensions, purchasing property, building small businesses—only to find that those who adhered most diligently to this advice are now being punished most severely.
Meanwhile, those who have committed to no such prudence, who have viewed the state as an inexhaustible font of largesse, are indulged. The message is clear: do not save, do not invest, do not aspire—for those who do will find themselves in the Chancellor’s crosshairs.
Conclusion: The Inevitable Reckoning
The economic consequences of these policies are predictable. Businesses will flee, capital will vanish, and those who can will take their wealth elsewhere. Britain, once a bastion of free enterprise, will become a hostile environment for ambition. And all the while, the public sector pension deficit will loom, a testament to a system that demands sacrifice from the many to sustain the privileges of the few.
The question is not whether this fiscal raid is sustainable—it is emphatically not. The question is simply how much damage will be done before its architects are held to account.
How to Make Public Sector Pensions Slightly Less Resemble a State-Sanctioned Ponzi Scheme
Here is a list of measures Rachel Reeves might consider should she ever develop a taste for the sort of "fairness" that extends beyond the private sector and into the gilded halls of public employment.
1. Transition from Defined Benefit to Defined Contribution Schemes
Public sector workers, accustomed to the unparalleled security of defined benefit pensions—underwritten, of course, by the tax-paying proletariat—could instead be ushered into the less profligate realm of defined contribution schemes, as their private sector counterparts have long endured. Let them, too, experience the thrilling vicissitudes of market-driven retirement planning, rather than luxuriating in state-backed certainties.
2. Raise the Public Sector Retirement Age
Since the private sector workforce is already being cajoled into working longer—its members dutifully labouring into their late sixties to prop up state obligations—it seems only fair that public servants join in this noble effort. Raising the public sector retirement age in line with life expectancy would reduce liabilities and, if nothing else, offer those in Whitehall the rare chance to witness the consequences of their own economic policies.
3. Link Pension Increases to CPI Rather than Final Salary
Presently, the largesse of public sector pensions is generously tethered to final salary calculations, ensuring that those who ascend to senior positions receive pensions fit for a maharaja. A switch to consumer price index (CPI)-linked adjustments would impose a modicum of fiscal discipline while still ensuring that retirees are not left to the wolves—merely placed in slightly less gilded cages.
4. Introduce Higher Employee Contribution Rates
At present, the public purse covers a disproportionately high percentage of pension contributions compared to the meagre sums demanded from its public sector beneficiaries. Were Rachel Reeves to demand an increase in employee contributions—say, to something approaching parity with the private sector—she might discover that enthusiasm for “generous pensions” wanes significantly when the recipients must bear more of the cost themselves.
5. Cap Pension Payouts
For reasons known only to the architects of this financial indulgence, there remains no meaningful cap on public sector pension payouts. Thus, those ensconced in the upper echelons of bureaucracy retire to pensions that most private sector workers would find indistinguishable from a lottery windfall. Establishing an upper limit on pension payouts—perhaps something in line with median earnings—might introduce a much-needed element of humility.
6. Tax Public Sector Pensions More Heavily
Given that the Government has demonstrated an admirable zeal for taxing private pensions, one might reasonably expect it to apply similar enthusiasm towards levying more tax on public sector pensions. Aligning tax treatment for public sector retirees with their private sector equivalents would at least imbue the system with a semblance of equitability, if not outright justice.
7. End Early Retirement Perks
Many public sector schemes still allow early retirement with full benefits, a quaint and costly relic of an era when the state’s largesse knew no bounds. Scrapping such provisions would align the public sector with the harsh realities of modern employment, where early retirement is a privilege earned through personal financial prudence rather than state benevolence.
8. Eliminate ‘Double Dipping’
It remains a curious anomaly that many public sector workers, having “retired” on full pension, promptly re-enter the workforce while continuing to draw their state-backed bounty. Were such individuals required to suspend pension payments until they permanently retire, the savings could be substantial—though doubtless met with much wailing from the beneficiaries of such a system.
9. Introduce a Public Sector Pension Levy
Given that Rachel Reeves is so fond of levying additional charges on private wealth, it would seem only just to introduce a dedicated levy on the most generous public sector pensions—a small token of gratitude from those who have lived off the taxpayer’s dime for decades.
10. End the Public Sector’s Pension Immunity from Economic Realities
Finally, the most radical of all suggestions: subject public sector pensions to the same economic realities that govern private retirement funds. Let them be exposed to the market, to fluctuating interest rates, and to the same risks that private pensioners endure daily. If such policies are deemed reasonable for the private sector, surely they should be equally acceptable for the state's own?
Conclusion: Will Rachel Reeves Dare?
The question, of course, is not whether these measures are sensible—they most certainly are. The real question is whether Reeves and her colleagues would ever apply to themselves the same austerity and prudence they so enthusiastically impose upon the private sector. Given their reliance on a taxpayer-funded cushion, one suspects the answer to be a resounding no.
Comments