Pensions are to fund the cost of living in retirement, they are not savings vehicles to pass on to the younger generation, was the clear message in the first budget by Rachel Reeves. There are three things to take away from this, even before the consultation on the proposed changes is undertaken. Imposing inheritance tax on remaining pension benefits and maintaining the current imposition of income tax will lead to an effective tax rate of around 67%, resulting in wealthier pensioners almost certainly looking to 'spend the kids' inheritance'. This will be a significant shift from the more usual financial advice on this issue. Then, there is the administrative burden and complexity on providers and executors of the new regime and the inevitable mistakes and claims that will emanate from such a significant change. Finally, we can be confident this will not be the last change we will see. The longer-term benefit in tax revenues of imposing IHT on pensions must be in doubt given that the Institute for Fiscal Studies recently concluded that the assumption, that future pensioners will be in the same position as today's pensioners, needs challenging. Although automatic enrolment has helped more people save for retirement than ever before, it leaves the individual investor bearing all the risk, for example on poor investment choices, insufficient contributions and withdrawing too much too early. The current system also does not meet the needs of those unable to work until they reach the currently escalating retirement age or address the unaffordability of the triple lock on the state pension in the longer term or the worrying low levels of the self-employed saving in a pension plan. It is a long list and some of these are issues that the government may well grapple with during the course of this parliament.