Cameron makes savings tax pledge

cocktail

cogito wrote: »

To be accurate, he lectured in politics and worked for Scottish TV for a couple of years as current affairs editor. Do either of these count as real jobs? I think not.

should he have worked in a chip shop or asda to count as a real job

carolt

Very interesting thread.

Dear me, Nick Mason - most amused at your 'outing' as I recall the Tory oiks when I was at Oxford, somewhat before your time - quite shattered my image of you.

Good to see Cameron at least attempting to open up some clear blue water between the Tories and Labour, rather than just dithering on the sidelines.

At least it gives voter a choice - or would do if Gordon didn't keep nicking any good ideas the Tories have within about 5 minutes.

It seems like a good idea to me - borrowers have been given a huge handout via lower interest rates, penalising prudent savers. Time to return the favour, methinks. Limiting the benefit only to basic rate tax payers should prevent the really rich benefiiting.

Obviously, it will appeal to the Tories core vote, but still seems fair to me.

After all, cash rich but income-poor pensioners aren't that way as a clever tax dodge - they're that way because they're too old to work any more, so either live off savings/pensions accrued earlier, or off the state. Surely taxpayers should welcome the former and encourage it?

Cleaver

nickmason wrote: »

Except that of course by encouraging saving, it does something for everyone; and more for those who aren't currently saving by encouraging them to do so (as long as it's a long term policy nudge).

If there are people out there that don't save any money, why do you think this is? I presume it's because they don't earn enough or have any room in their budget to save or because they just aren't the type of sensible person that saves. I don't see how cutting the tax from savings would suddenly enable / encourage either of these groups to save money?

Having said all that, I think it's quite a 'nice' thing to do for the public as a whole, but quite why it's only there for basic rate tax payers and not everyone else is beyond me.

nickmason

carolt wrote: »

Dear me, Nick Mason - most amused at your 'outing' as I recall the Tory oiks when I was at Oxford, somewhat before your time - quite shattered my image of you.

Oh, did I come across as a nice caring sort?:D Or was it just that you didn't realise how easy it is for bears of little brain to get into Oxford these days?

This surprise happens quite a lot to me - more that non-Tories are surprised that I am one, than Tories are surprised that I work for Amnesty, etc, etc. I like to think that's because the party has changed, although I'm probably biased.

Spent very little time with the "Tory oiks" as you put it. My tweed jackets are by dint of Dorset, rather than an aspiration to be lord of the manor.

Occasionally I get my outfits wrong - particularly managing the obligatory three day stubble in Shoreditch with the requirement for a cleanly shaved face in more "country" circles is a struggle...;)

climbingoutoftheabyss

I like the idea of th Labour propoganda thats repeated on here, that Cameron is out of touch as he is wealthy.

I guess thats why Labour are the party of the working people, you know the ones: Lord Kinnock, Lord Mandelson. How much is Tony are Cherie worth these days?

Wealthy people aren't bad people, thats just socialist propoganda. Indeed, socialists make the worst wealthy people, they preach everyone is equal when indeed we are all equal, its just that some animals are more equal than others.

Socialism is littered with wealthy people, you only have to look at two jags playing croquette on the lawn of his manor house

Wealth is good, it gives is something to aspire to. The Conservatives philosophy is to create wealth with little intervention from central government, Labours philosophy is to tax and then redistribute it, controlling at every aspect.

Add-up Mandelson's, Blairs, Browns, Kinnocks and Prescotts personal wealth - I bet it dwarfs what Cameron is worth.

nickmason

Cleaver wrote: »

If there are people out there that don't save any money, why do you think this is? I presume it's because they don't earn enough or have any room in their budget to save or because they just aren't the type of sensible person that saves. I don't see how cutting the tax from savings would suddenly enable / encourage either of these groups to save money?

A number of people have talked of the economic text-books being rewritten after this, and I think this might well be one of the areas which will change.

Economics as taught now suggests that you are right; that people don't save because they haven't the spare cash. Both you and I, in previous posts, have recognised that the attitude is key here.

A ridiculous proportion (something like half, I think) of the UK's wage-earners don't save. There are of course some who can't. But there are lots who could, but don't for complicated attitudinal reasons. They think there's no point, or that they are entitled to full consumption (ie no saving). As we know there are many who think they are entitled to more consumption than they can afford, and so live off ever-increasing (sic) credit.

This whole, extraordinarily successful MSE website, is full of people realising that they can cut their cloth accordingly, and working out how to balance their books. It does fill me with inspiration and hope (and reminds me that it's not always the government that fixes things).

We're sunk as a nation unless we individually rediscover - ahem - prudence, rather than leaving it to the government.

louiser123

!!!!!!? wrote: »

You mean savers?

What a great attitude - anyone with the financial sense and responsibility to save some money deserves to be penalised. No wonder the country is up to its neck in debt.

actually no not entirely correct!!!

the people who have savings to be able to sustain a good bit from this are not the ones infact who are in dire need of help at the moment!!!

i am not poo pooing savers at all, and yes some people earn enough to be able to save a good amount, alot of people dont earn enough to even benefit on the savings they have toiled to collect. just simply more money for the richer ones in society who can save 100.s a month and nothing for those living on the edge but trying to make a better life. noones fault but just a fact of life, there will always be people better off than others but some thought to those who are in dire need get my sympathy at the moment not those who are worried at loosing a few percent in savings rates.
you all still have your original invested amount plus a bit, others are finding themselfs with no home!! so for me no question on who should be helped.

not every one is stupid with money, but then not everyone can save big amounts no matter how much they try, and not everyone is debt up to thier eyeballs either just living on the breadline through sheer lifes consequence!

ps i do save, im not in debt, but if it meant i had to loose a percent or two on my savings to prevent someone who is genuinely in need from loosing thier home they could take it willingly.

casper_uk

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

A basic rate taxpayer with £35,000 banked at 5% would save only £350 per year (less than was lost when the married couple's tax allowance was scrapped). A higher rate taxpayer would save double at £700.

More you have in savings (i.e., the richer you are) the bigger the giveaway.

Sounds like a Tory policy. Nothing for the poor but a lot for the rich.

Could sound the end of Premium Bonds.

GG

We are talking about the basic tax rate here, nothing to do with higher tax people as they would pay the same! It's a policy not for the rich but anyone who is a basic tax payer and has savings.

Why is it always reduced to what the Tories have done in the past? Why are people not concerned with here and now and what labour have done to this country over the past 10 years?

I am starting to see a pattern here:

(1) Labour mess up the country good and proper.

(2) Tories fix the problem and become unpopular due to steps taken to fix Labours mess.

(3)Labour voted in due to Tories being unpopular and wreck the country again. (see 1)

It will happen again i tell you, Labour will be forced out next election and the Tories will be forced to take the hard line in order to fix the mess. Tories become unpopular and Labour will once again be in power to start the mad cycle all over again.

neverdespairgirl

nickmason wrote: »

Welcome back Sir Humphrey! (I am quite amused by your anonymous "outing" of me, given that I haven't been in any way shy about my political allegiance or indeed elected position.)

Someone calling himself "Nick Mason" on a board isn't exactly outed if someone else says he is really "Nick Mason" (-:

Cleaver

nickmason wrote: »

A number of people have talked of the economic text-books being rewritten after this, and I think this might well be one of the areas which will change.

Economics as taught now suggests that you are right; that people don't save because they haven't the spare cash. Both you and I, in previous posts, have recognised that the attitude is key here.

A ridiculous proportion (something like half, I think) of the UK's wage-earners don't save. There are of course some who can't. But there are lots who could, but don't for complicated attitudinal reasons. They think there's no point, or that they are entitled to full consumption (ie no saving). As we know there are many who think they are entitled to more consumption than they can afford, and so live off ever-increasing (sic) credit.

This whole, extraordinarily successful MSE website, is full of people realising that they can cut their cloth accordingly, and working out how to balance their books. It does fill me with inspiration and hope (and reminds me that it's not always the government that fixes things).

We're sunk as a nation unless we individually rediscover - ahem - prudence, rather than leaving it to the government.

I concur with all of this well written post.

I just wonder whether you think this Conservative policy would encourage people to save? I'm not asking in a loaded way, I agree with what you are saying in that we just don't seem to have a culture for saving anything. And cultures are very hard to change via policy.