But at that level they also won't have any IHT exposure - and on average you are looking at the fund level after 10+ years of withdrawal, not the "peak" value before drawdown. The peak fund value you would need to have to expect to have a death estate subject to IHT is a lot more than £550k.

25k then. The avarice.

yes but again, if they actually draw it they won't end up with an IHT liability. We are only talking about situations where they have a fund that would support drawing e.g. £30kpa, they only draw £20k, and they end up with a larger balance on death. It's not a tax on large pensions that are "used"

Because no one can predict when they are going to die. These people are not in receipt of index linked pensions, guaranteed for life.

...and have chosen not to annuitise in the hope of passing on the surplus they have over and above meeting their lifetime income needs? It's a chosen strategy, not one that is forced on people (it's pension freedom, not compulsion....)

More likely because for the last 20 years annuity rates have been awful.

yes, because they think they will achieve greater value (higher income and retained surplus) through this route - if they "win" that bet, then the surplus forms part of their estate for IHT purposes.

I think for most just higher income. Still nowhere near what their compatriots in the public sector enjoy.

sure, that’s a reasonable debate (taking into account relative salaries in public sector etc) but surely shouldn’t drive IHT policy?

What needs looking at is the disparity between those who have saved for a pension in the private sector vs what is available in the public sector, through taxpayer funded contributions well in excess of 20% pa and index linked and guaranteed until death. Compare that to an equivalent 550k annuity.