'Pensions are politicians' piggy banks' George Osborne, the Chancellor, said the changes would affect only the wealthiest 1pc of the population who could afford to put aside such sums into a pension each year, the average contribution being closer to £6,000 a year. However, it is estimated that far more people will be hit. Middle managers on five-figure salaries, rather than six-figure ones, could be dragged in if they are long-standing members of final salary schemes. In some cases a pay rise could trigger a tax charge that exceeds the increase in their take-home pay. Jason Hollands of Bestinvest, the advisory firm, added that the changes didn't hit just the "mega rich" but many middle-class professionals and the self-employed, "who often end up making a couple of large contributions as they approach retirement to catch up on the years when they have not paid into a pension because they were paying off the mortgage or bringing up children." Invariably, such payments are financed from a redundancy payout or the sale of a business. But more widespread, and more pernicious, is the effect on ordinary savers and investors. Mr Hollands said: "They send negative subliminal messages that the pensions system is unstable and subject to perpetual change because the politicians see it as a piggy bank when they are short of money. This has to stop. Tom McPhail, the head of pensions research at Hargreaves Lansdown, said that over the past decade alone there had been more than 20 separate changes to pension legislation - and that was before this week. Under Labour from 1997 to 2010 there was a different pensions minister every year. While the incumbent, Steve Webb, has proved to have more staying power, the constant tinkering has continued. The timeline, left, highlights some of the main changes. Each change layers complexity on to an already confusing system. For example, each time the "lifetime allowance" is lowered, transitional arrangements are put in place to protect those who have already breached the limit, while altering the annual allowance makes it difficult to "carry forward" up to three years of unused pension allowances. Mr Bee added: "It is beyond irony that six years ago there was a major rule change known as 'pensions simplification'. But now we are back to square one, with ever more torturous rules and regulation. Given this background, it is not surprising that advisers such as Andrew Penman of PKF, the accountants, said many people who consulted his firm had "no idea where to invest their money" and were "unsure about the long-term benefits of pension savings." Many preferred the simplicity of tax-free Isas. If successive governments cannot be trusted to honour pension promises, the alternative is to switch to a simpler system. Many point out that in the Fifties not only were pensions easier to understand, but working people who didn't have access to a gold-plated final salary scheme were able to build a comparable retirement pot. Back then there was no lifetime or annual allowance; people could save a fixed proportion of their salaries into a pension plan, starting at 17.5pc and rising to 40pc by the time they were in their fifties. Mr Bee said: "Arguably, this was a much better system. Those who built what was essentially the modern pension system knew what they were doing. People who put away 17.5pc of salary during a working life would end up with a pension broadly equivalent to two-thirds of their final salary, on a par with what was paid by most company pension schemes of the time. But the latest pension change widens the gulf between gold-plated final salary schemes, which are predominantly available only to public-sector workers, and stock market based pensions, which are the norm in the private sector. This week's changes mean that from 2014 the maximum pension for those in a final salary scheme will reduce to £62,500. But the reduced lifetime limit of £1.25m - combined with rock-bottom annuity rates - will secure a pension of just £41,000 a year for a 65-year-old man, assuming that he wants to inflation-proof his income and provide a spouse's pension (both of which are standard on public sector pensions). Mr Bee added: "Many of these changes are designed to stop those at the top of the income scale taking too much tax relief. But the very wealthiest don't tend to put all their money in pensions, because they lose control of it. There should be greater focus on encouraging the vast majority of people to save for their old age, particularly at a time when 13 million people will be automatically enrolled in company pension schemes over the next few years. If the Government continues to meddle, many people may simply opt straight back out again - which could be a disaster for the future of this country.