The next government had better prepare itself for some heavy lobbying from some of my breakfast companions this morning.

I went along to discuss the future of pension saving with some well-known people in the business, including Maggie Craig, director of life and savings at the Association of British Insurers, Tom McPhail, head of pensions policy at Hargreaves Lansdown and Laurie Edmans – who’s just been appointed one of the people who will run the government’s new national pension saving scheme, Nest.

One of the topics that got people most excited – after we had discussed the problem of people not saving enough for retirement, and not being aware of their options when they do retire – was Tom’s notion that the next government should appoint a minister for savings. Such a person, he argued, would focus purely on making sure people understood how to save their money – both for retirement and for other things, like putting down a deposit on a house.

Everyone around the breakfast table nodded agreement and said we should all start lobbying straight away – or, in Tom’s words, “kick the door down in Whitehall and get them to make changes”. “I wish I’d thought of it myself,” said Laurie.

It doesn’t sound like a bad idea – especially when you consider that people failing to save their money means they have to rely on the state in retirement, and that a lack of savings means reliance on credit card bills and potential bankruptcies – contributing to the state our economy is now in. After all, we have a minister for housing, a minister for investment and a minister for pensions. Why not one for savings too?

The Financial Services Authority said today that commission on financial advice will be banned – again. It has been saying this for quite some time and set out proposals telling everyone what it was going to do last summer so I’m not sure why people seem so surprised.

Ok – so it’s a confirmation of the proposals. And it’s a good thing that commission is getting scrapped – in principle. But read a little behind the lines and I’m not sure how much effect this will all really have.

A reduction in capital gains tax (CGT)! Who’d have thought it?

By announcing an extension of the CGT entrepreneur relief, from £1m to £2m, the chancellor has not just cut the tax bills of business owners looking to sell up and retire – he has also allowed investors with a stake of 5 per cent of more in a company to enjoy a lower rate on their profits.

Damien Crossley, corporate tax partner at Macfarlanes, the City law firm said:

“The extension of entrepreneur relief from £1m to £2m is good news for owner managers of businesses who will now pay the lower 10 per cent capital gains tax rate on up to £2m of gains over their lifetime.”

Frank Nash, Blick Rothenberg, saw it as compensation for losing so much pension tax relief:

“The doubling of the capital gains tax entrepreneurs’ relief limit to £2 million will be a welcome move for retiring business owners particularly as the Chancellor has hit their pension funds so harshly with recent tax changes.”

But don’t be fooled. Capital gains tax will inevitably be raised for everyone before long – probably after the election. In an ironic inversion of New Labour’s 1997 election slogan, Louise Somerset of RBC Wealth management warned:

Wealthy taxpayers are unlikely to look at this Budget as being as bad as it gets, and I expect clients wanting to… lock in current tax rates before things possibly get worse.”

She, and others, point out that the difference between income tax rates of up to 50 per cent and CGT at 18 per cent is now so significant that many people will be putting a great deal of energy into ensuring they realise capital gains rather than income. No government is likely to allow that to happen for too long.

Steve Folkard, AXA Life’s head of pensions and savings policy, said: “It surely hasn’t escaped the chancellor that this is a massive difference, but closing the gap will not be a quick measure as it would be entirely unfair to make a change effective prior to the next tax year.”

A new chancellor may be less concerned about fairness.

The chancellor said nothing new about pensions today. But he did confirm that the fiendishly complex rules on pension savings introduced in last year’s Budget and December’s pre-Budget report are here to stay.

Not only does this ignore the advice of most of the pensions industry, who’ve been submitting pretty annoyed responses to the ideas over the past month or so. It also flies in the face of pensions simplification, which was introduced in 2006 and was supposed to make saving into a pension easier for most of us.

There are now a mindboggling number of rules on whether you can get pension tax relief.

This will “hit the rich quite hard” is how Andrew Tailby-Faulkes, partner with Ernst & Young, put it when he called to offer his thoughts on Mr Darling’s address.

But those who are not wealthy also have cause for concern. The combined effects of the government’s move to encourage home ownership and keep the inheritance tax threshold at £325,000 for a further four years means that more of us are likely to draw inheritance tax charges.

As John Richardson, head of Advice Policy at Towry Law explains:

“Freezing the inheritance tax threshold for 4 years will mean more families will be caught by this tax and will therefore need to consider estate planning opportunities by maximising reliefs and exemptions.

“Trustees of discretionary trusts will need to consider more tax efficient investment structures to minimise 10 year anniversary charges,” he adds.

Taulby-Faulkes had predicted that Mr Darling might introduce a higher IHT rate for large estates. But this prophecy has not come to pass.

The rules are the same. After the first £325,000 “nil-rate” band is reached, the remainder of an estate is taxed at 40 per cent. Married couples and civil partners are able to use any unused portion of their partners’ nil-rate band upon their death.