Doodledog
Would cutting the tax free sum limit mean that fewer people would take out a lot of money and leave themselves without enough to live on, so end up claiming benefits? Or is it that pension contributions are tax free when made, so the idea is that you pay tax when it becomes income?
Sorry if that's nonsense, but I didn't need to think about that sort of thing as my occupational pension was a fixed amount based on salary, and I had no say over how much lump sum I took (Mr D's was the same). I don't really understand the motive behind possible cuts to the lump sum, and think it's important to understand that before deciding whether I think it's a good idea or not.
I assume this is the case and I see no problem with it being limited. My pensions are all public sector - NHS and LGPS - so I couldn't take anything until I retired and took the pension, but part of the overall amount could be taken as a tax free lump sum, so the only difference was that I couldn't dip into it early. Restricting the tax free amount seems fair enough as the contributions are tax deductible in the first place.
I agree with the WFA being means tested as many people received it who were very comfortably off. Unfortunately I think that making the cut-off those on pension credit will leave many people above that level seriously struggling, but to properly means test it would be costly administratively.
I still remember my in-laws refering to themselves as 'poor pensioners now' when FiL retired, despite them being far better off than we were at the time with two children and a big mortgage! MiL is still probably vastly better off than me as my pension income is much lower and I still have a small mortgage, so she definitely doesn't need the WFA. I'll survive with out it, just having to be even more careful than I already am, but some won't!