Cameron makes savings tax pledge

harry_w

It seems to me that particular interest groups (in this case the lower paid and pensioners) will get tax free savings.

Recent measures have been directed towards mortgage borrowers, with extra help for those in particular interest groups, as ever (e.g. key workers).

It seems meaningless to people who happen to fall outside the Labour and Tories' pet voting groups.

I don't see it as economic policy, it's electioneering.

carolt

nickmason wrote: »

I think one of the interesting aspects of this is that it signifies a shift from benefits for the diligent (ie "insiders", typically middle class) to all.
I know that this seems extraordinary to those who see the conservatives as self-serving, but it really doesn't surprise me given what I know of the core ethos and philosophy behind the conservative party, made more visible under Cameron.

Sadly, I share none of your enthusiasm for Cameron or the Tories.

Cameron's grasp on things seems shallow at best, and given that he's supposed to be providing opposition to a govt that's been in power for 11 years and taken us into one of the worst recessions seen for donkey's years, I'd like to see him pointing that out a little more and actually providing some opposition.

As a natural Labour supporter, I don't think Gordon et al should get let off the hook for everything they've done wrong - but nor do I trust Cameron, I'm afraid. Not one little bit.

carolt

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing to stop working class people from using ISAs except for not knowing about them and not having the money to put into them. To encourage working class people to save, their incomes have to be protected (via lower IRs and fiscal stimulus) and they need to be told about ISAs. This is just about helping the fairly-well-off retired Daily Mail readers to make a little more money at the end of the year. And that is being charitable to him, as what Cameron is proposing will make sweet FA difference to saving patterns anyway. If you lose your job you cannot save, whatever the tax incentives.

I think that's a bit naive, frankly, and seems to be just swallowing Labour rhetoric hook, line and sinker.

I don't see that lowering interest rates to zero and printing money is the answer - nor why savers should bear the brunt of saving our country from going to hell in a handcart. They're already hit by interest rate falls - if interest rates go down further, there will be zero motivation to save in a bank, and therefore zero money for banks to lend and therefore taxpayers have to bail the banks out again, and so the merry-go-round goes on until Gordon's bled the country dry, sterling collapses and quite possibly the economy too (worst case scenario, obviously).

Encouraging people to save in banks seems like a good idea to me - otherwise my children are going to be paying for this bail-out till they're old.

Fundamentally, I think short, sharp falls in asset prices are the best and least painful solution - then banks can get to business again, unpriceable assets can comfortably be priced again, and the economy can return to an even keel.

Will hurt in the short term - lots. But better to bail out some for a year or two than larger numbers for years on end, with the same result.

Oh, and I can buy a house at a reasonable price, before anyone is dim enough to point out my own bias in this. Yes - it would be good for me. But good for (almost)everyone else too.

Sir_Humphrey

carolt wrote: »

I think that's a bit naive, frankly, and seems to be just swallowing Labour rhetoric hook, line and sinker.

My opinion is that Brown is roughly on the right lines now. Over the last year he has done a completely handbrake U-turn. I don't really care though since it is in a better direction. Lower IRs will not solve the problem alone, but are necessary if a fiscal stimulus is to work. The return on investment has to exceed the return on savings. By spending, I do not just mean spending in shops, but also government spending (on power and transport infrastructure which is now the main infrastruture weakness in the UK rather than schools and hospitals). The government have not done this yet, but I suspect we will be seeing some announcements fairly soon. The govt will have to spend as over-indebted comsumers cannot do so. If over-indebted consumers are to repay debt rather than default, they need to stay in work and pay off plenty of principle - this means lower IRs. It would certainly not be letting them off - it will mean a hair shirt for many years. For me, rapidly falling house prices are excellent news for the economy (as opposed to slowly falling HPs). The sooner they fall to a proper level, the sooner I will spend my savings on a deposit, the sooner I buy electricals, furniture and white goods, and the sooner I boost the economy.

nickmason

carolt wrote: »

Sadly, I share none of your enthusiasm for Cameron or the Tories.

Cameron's grasp on things seems shallow at best, and given that he's supposed to be providing opposition to a govt that's been in power for 11 years and taken us into one of the worst recessions seen for donkey's years, I'd like to see him pointing that out a little more and actually providing some opposition.

As a natural Labour supporter, I don't think Gordon et al should get let off the hook for everything they've done wrong - but nor do I trust Cameron, I'm afraid. Not one little bit.

As previously mentioned he is trying to get heard; precisely the position Blair was frustrated by.
There is an adage in politics that only once you've bored yourself rigid with the message do people start hearing it for the first time. I imagine Cameron is pretty bored with pointing out the ridiculous economic policies that have got us into this mess - he even resorted to "I want to shake Gordon Brown...." :eek:

carolt

Well, could he do it better please? I don't know whether the message has failed to get across because Peter Mandelson has all the press in some sort of stranglehold or whether Cameron's just not said it pithily enough, but I do still feel that Vince Cable - and the wonderful Private Eye - are apparently the only effective opposition we have. And like him though I do, the Lib Dems aren't going to get elected.

If it's the 'pithily' thing, maybe Cameron needs better speechwriters or better delivery or both.

If it's the paucity of ideas - as I suspect - then he could do worse than getting rid of that oik George Osborne and replacing him wth someone of substance ...like Ken Clarke, as I heard mooted recently in the Telegraph. (Only Tory I like.)

Incidentally, Osborne was my contemporary at Oxford, as Sir Humphrey here is of you...but unlike Sir Humphrey, I certainly was NOT aware of Osborne at the time, even though he read the same subject as me. He certainly wasn't president of anything then and his presence caused no stir at all, not even a teeny ripple.

He seems about as qualified to be Chancellor of the Exchequer as I do - ie not at all.

Do hope Cameron gets rid of him, particularly if we're going to be lumbered with a Tory govt soon, still likely.

pickles110564

carolt wrote: »

He seems about as qualified to be Chancellor of the Exchequer as I do - ie not at all.

Least he is a nice person unlike your bitter and twisted persona.

carolt

Why, do you know him?

Sapphire

harry_w wrote: »

It seems to me that particular interest groups (in this case the lower paid and pensioners) will get tax free savings.

Recent measures have been directed towards mortgage borrowers, with extra help for those in particular interest groups, as ever (e.g. key workers).

It seems meaningless to people who happen to fall outside the Labour and Tories' pet voting groups.

I don't see it as economic policy, it's electioneering.

Well, the Tories will get my vote if Cameron's proposals in this respect go through (and haven't all parties throughout history 'electioneered'?).

I was going to vote for the Liberal Democrats, but feel they are perhaps trying to ally themselves with labour – possibly as a preparation to form a 'National Coalition Unity Socialist Democratic Liberal Party', or whatever – since I feel Brown is power crazy and will do anything to stay in power.

I will not vote for Brown and his cronies whatever happens – I loathe them.

harry_w

Aren't Labour expected to pick up the Tories proposals in any case? I think the Tories would have behaved much the same as Labour in the face of the financial crisis and the years of easy credit that preceded it.

As bad as Labour's economic management has proved, the Tories were no better. They managed to deregulate the mortgage market and build their own boom & bust in the early 90's, and it only ended when they squandered the Bank of England's reserves trying to avoid a forced devaluation.

I tend to think the significance of 'party' politics is over-played post-Thatcher. Both parties accept the same principals of political economy (devolve everything to the private sector, stoke consumption and asset booms).

They compete to appeal to particular sections of the electorate, by bidding with handouts like benefits, tax credits and exemptions, that are all useless if one falls outside groups deemed to be either worthy enough, or such a large group they must be bailed out.

Why should people priced out of the housing market for years, have their savings rates slashed while pensioners sitting on wealth gained from that inflated housing market get their savings sheltered from tax?