In many ways, more senior savers who are already in a DB scheme like AFPS, wont be (ultimately) too badly affected. That might sound daft. I'm a supporter of tax relief being age related, amongst other factors. There are other threats which loom large. The first, I believe, relates to the annual allowance. Not so much in changing it from its headline figure, but more, in how that headline figure is arrived at. GAD previously
published its 'Reducing the Annual Allowance Setting the valuation factor' paper in October 2010. At the time, it suggested that the valuation factors were good for 'five to ten years'. Do the maths. The role of the paper was to recommend a single factor to be used to value the increase in an individual's DB pension over a single tax year, for the purpose of applying the Annual Allowance test (from April 2011). A valuation factor of sixteen was finally settled on, compared to a previous, far more benign factor of ten (a factor of twenty is currently used to determine the Lifetime Allowance test).
To give you an idea, when working out your annual allowance, calculate the annual pension amount at the beginning of your pension input period (AFPS is April), in other words, the pension that you would get if you retired now at normal pension age. That number should then be increased by the increase in CPI over the 12 month period to the September *before* the start of the tax year in which the annual allowance is being calculated. As AFPS also gives you a lump sum in addition to the pension (i.e. before further possible commutation of pension), you add this on.
You then multiply this amount by the magic number I just referred to - sixteen. Then (phew) you calculate the value at the end of the pension input period; the end value shouldn't be increased by CPI. Again, multiply this amount by sixteen. And, again, because AFPS offers three times annual pension as a lump sum, you once more add it on. Deduct the start value from the end you have calculated, this is the pension input amount. Bear in mind that the rights to be valued will also include any benefits taken during the period, any rights transferred out to another registered pension scheme, and any pension debits, and also any other pension contributions that may have been made.
But you can see how much of an impact that a revaluation increase from ten to sixteen has has. No one knows if a further revaluation will happen, but the bottom line is simple. It's easy to do, and once the public sector pay cap has been formally removed, more middle/high level managers/officers will be brought into scope of breaching the annual allowance by virtue of their income if it was, for instance, raised by even a few basis points. Simply put, DB scheme members are seen as fair game by the opinion formers and the cognoscenti. Jeremy Corbyn is snapping at May's heels and it is anticipated that today, she will announce in Manchester the adoption of some of his housing policies. She will not care too much (my belief anyway) if an obscure, highly technical calculation that targets middle/high level managers in the public sector makes a few more quid to pay for the social housing that she has been compelled to introduce.
I will post about my second worry later, but I'd like to finish off by reminding you that I am only a retired and long past it Regiment JNCO so check your own maths and don't sue me if you get it wrong.