A leading Birmingham accountant is calling for significant changes to the pension arrangements of MPs, cabinet ministers, judges, doctors and senior civil servants.

The call follows a detailed study by Henry Briggs, senior partner of the Birmingham office of Haines Watts, which has revealed a significant disparity between private sector funded pensions and those enjoyed by MPs and other public sector figures.

Mr Briggs, whose firm acts for both private individuals as well as small and medium size companies across the region, said the public is still smarting over the MPs' expense scandal but should be even more concerned over their pension arrangements.

"It's not surprising that MPs voted to delay a review into their pensions. Their salaries burden is now running at £130m and the government's actuary has warned that their pensions cost to the Exchequer is likely to breach 20% of this cost: £26m a year," said Mr Briggs whose study has revealed five major disparities on pensions.

Disparity one: For the majority of citizens, any contributions of more than £20,000 a year receive only basic rate tax relief. Contributions of more than £20,000 a year made by an employer are taxable on the employee at top rates as a benefit in kind.

"In comparison, an MP's contributory scheme is set at 6% - so contributions by  participants are too low to breach the £20,000 rule. The rest, now equivalent to 20% of salaries, is funded by the taxpayer without any tax," said Mr Briggs.

Disparity two: A normal citizen's pension fund dividend income is taxed. 

"But for MPs, senior civil servants and others, there is no fund: the pension is funded by the taxpayer."

Disparity three: The same is the case for the top end funds by capital value. If this exceeds £1.65m then a punitive tax rate is applied to ordinary citizens. 

"But cabinet ministers (who are entitled to be voted additional service allowances, even if they are only in the Government for one day), MPs, judges, doctors and senior civil servants - all paid out of the public purse, and many of whose pensions' capital value exceeds this huge sum - have specific exemption from this tax." 

Disparity four: The biggest difference relates to the funding and reporting requirements of final salary schemes that have led to most employers having to close schemes to new entrants or bankrupt the employer. 

"For MPs, senior civil servants and others, all are final salary schemes with inflation proofing. There are no reporting or disclosure requirements."

Disparity five: MPs standing down at the next election who have done 15 or more years service are also entitled to a full year's salary (£65,000) in severance, of which the first £30,000 is treated as tax free, although it is contractual and part of the bigger package. They also receive 'winding up' costs towards staff and leases of up to £41,000 which are not taxable.

"Meanwhile, a worker who has been in a job and who receives a severance payment of up to £30,000 that is non-contractual will receive that tax free. But on any higher or contractual payment, HM Revenue and Customs will seek to tax the full amount at higher rates," said Mr Briggs.

When asked to comment, Fiona McEvoy, campaign agent for the West Midlands Taxpayers' Alliance, said the disparities were unacceptable and unfair.

"As always, it's one rule for them and a completely different one for the rest of us. It's ridiculous that taxpayers are being squeezed in order to subsidise such generous benefits for MPs and various other public sector workers, and all while their own pension pots simply can't compare. 

Politicians and the like can't blame people for feeling as though they've been taken for a ride when all the time they're learning more about this grossly unfair system," said Ms McEvoy.