I don't consider there to be a government contribution at all: in reality, they are permitting you to pay income tax at a later date (at a rate we don't yet kno

I don't consider there to be a government contribution at all: in reality, they are permitting you to pay income tax at a later date (at a rate we don't yet know). Assuming you have covered your debts and housing costs and have decided to forego luxuries and still have enough spare cash to save in a pension, then: This situation can benefit you, yes, but only under the assumption that you will have a lower percentage income tax liability in retirement compared to your liability now. This is typically true under the current system for present-day retirees, but is not guaranteed to continue. If you do end up paying the same percentage income tax after retirement, having a pension agreement or not will make little difference to your wealth. With a pension, we are now taking a risk that depends on the future of the political system. I understand if you think that's a fair enough risk, but there's more: A pension is legally locked up until age 55, a pressure point that may prevent you from accessing accounts with properly competitive fees in the future (since you won't have access to accounts outside the pension system, you may also have to suffer the worst of the financial industry). If there's any reason you need the saved money prior to 55 - you can't access it and will have to make expensive decisions to cover this. This is the final nail in the coffin for me: unless you have a whole bunch of rainy day savings, on top of your house ideally with no debts attached, a pension becomes a poor risk compared to non-pension savings IMHO. In the example where you quote numbers, you seem to have double-counted the tax relief for a basic rate payer (your numbers are wrong; though they seem correct for a 40% payer - high earners may benefit more from a pension). Best of luck with your investment decisions.