With the November Budget just around the corner, the question on many savers’ minds is a familiar one – will the government slash pensioners’ tax-free cash?
It’s a headline that appears before almost every Budget, triggering anxiety across workplaces. The worry is simple enough – if the Chancellor decides to cut or abolish tax-free cash from pensions, what would it mean for millions of people planning their retirement?
The truth is likely less dramatic, and far more reassuring. Despite renewed speculation, it remains highly unlikely that the government will make any significant change to pension tax-free cash this year. In this article, I’ll explain why.
The 25% rule explained
For almost 20 years, people have been able to take up to a quarter of their pension savings as a tax-free payment when they start drawing their pension. For example, if someone’s pension pot is worth £200,000, they can take £50,000 tax-free, and the rest would usually be taxed as income.
This rule was introduced in 2006, alongside something called the lifetime allowance – a limit on how much you could save into your pension overall before paying extra tax. Over time, the government changed how much tax-free cash people could take. At one point, the maximum was £450,000, but that figure was later reduced. Each time the rules changed, people who already had larger pension pots were given special protection so they didn’t lose out because of the new limits.
In 2024, the lifetime allowance was scrapped and replaced with a new limit called the lump sum allowance. This means the most you can now take tax-free from all your pensions combined is £268,275. The change also sparked concerns that the government might reduce this tax-free amount again – or even remove it completely – in the future.
Read more: Is Your School Ready for the Impact of the Employment Rights Bill on Pensions?
Could the Chancellor really cut tax-free cash overnight?
In theory, yes. In practice, it’s unlikely.
A Chancellor could announce a change to tax-free pension cash on Budget day and make it effective immediately. However, that kind of move would hit millions of people without warning and would be seen as deeply unfair.
To avoid that outcome, the government would need to bring in transitional protections for people close to retirement – just as it did when previous pension limits were reduced. In those cases, anyone who had already built up larger savings was allowed to keep their existing tax-free rights so they weren’t penalised by the rule change.
That protection, however, would also protect most of the potential revenue for the government. If nearly everyone retains their existing rights, the fiscal benefit disappears – while the political cost remains.
The result? Minimal gain, maximum controversy.
Read more: What is Salary Exchange for Pensions?
Cutting tax-free cash would be costly, complex and unpopular
Successive Chancellors have avoided cutting tax-free cash for good reason. It’s a move that would anger a broad swathe of voters – including long-serving public sector workers who have built up significant pension rights over many years.
It would also reignite concerns about fairness and complexity. Every previous reform has created a new pension tax-free cash discrepancy – a divide between those protected by old rules and those bound by new ones. Adding yet another layer would make an already complicated system even harder for savers and employers to navigate.
On a practical level, implementation would also be a huge challenge. Pension schemes, administrators, and payroll systems would all need to be retooled, guidance rewritten, and member communications updated. Delivering all that before a general election would be undeniably difficult
Even without any actual reform, speculation alone can be disruptive. Each rumour that the government might “slash pensioners’ tax-free cash” unsettles savers and leads to unintended behaviour – from people accessing pensions earlier than planned to those delaying retirement decisions. A consistent and predictable policy environment is essential for long-term planning, and repeated uncertainty makes that harder to achieve.
The 25% tax-free cash rule has remained in place because altering it would have limited financial benefit but wide-reaching administrative and behavioural consequences. The cost of change, in complexity and confidence, would likely outweigh any short-term gain.
