Cameron makes savings tax pledge

neverdespairgirl

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.

The link says it doesn't apply for 40% tax payers, though.

nickmason

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

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

No of course - it was more the "outing" of me as an Oxford toff because I was involved (marginally) in the Conservative Association and was president of the Oxford Union. Something that Sir Humphrey had previously called me on (he didn't accept my overture to identify himself, incidentally).

I thought I'd been open and honest about my political involvement, so it seemed like a cheap shot. Maybe I was being over-sensitive.

But I'll not be crying in my sleep over it.

PS - despite someone's astute observation that Masomnia is an anagram of I am Mason (especially after, bless Masomnia, he/she'd mentioned me in the "respected" thread), this might be an opportune time to note that that is simply a coincidence, and I haven't taken on a "sock puppet", as I think the vernacular goes. As I think I've already indicated, should I do so, then Hank Rearden is probably the name to look for....;)

Masomnia

Masomnia, but not Nick Mason.

Hehe don't worry Nick I still respect you, despite your recent outing I did apply to Oxford myself, so hard feelings there would just be jealousy/bitterness!

And I still respectfully disagree, sorry! People who don't save can already save tax-free in an ISA. You'd have to save more than 10% of income per annum to see any real benefit - or as someone pointed out, come into a bit of cash through a nice windfall. Doesn't seem all that likely at the moment.

Rochdale_Pioneers

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Perhaps you need to read this, posted on another thread here:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3078296/the-true-extent-of-britains-debt.thtml

Yes, I saw that when it came out. What about it? There have been various unofficial figures published all all have made some pretty big leaps of the imagination - one popular one being that all government contracts have to be counted as defaulted. So that would be every PFI contract suddenly worthless, every pension fund worthless, Northern Rock and the other nationalised banks suddenly have assets worth zero - add all those up and you start getting to the kind of figures that report quoted.

Is it making the same astonishing leaps of faith when calculating the debts of all the countries? Or when you're trying to make a partisan point don't you bother? I quoted you impartial data, gathered at a pan-European level. The data I quoted was factual, my argument about everyone else's debt rising at a similar rate to ours was both factual and logical.

So if you have answer to the facts rather than fantasy please feel free to post them.

nickmason

Cleaver wrote: »

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.

Better to try. I don't know whether it'll work. You're right culture is very hard to change. It's why I keep referring to philosophy, rather than policy. The message here, despite the attacks, is that the Conservatives want people to save - and will reward ordinary savings (rather than super-rich savings) to encourage this.

I mentioned this site. I think it will do much better (within its sphere of influence) than any government interference at encouraging a change of behaviour. This is in part because politicians are held in such low-esteem, that no-one likes to be guided by them. (This also one of the reasons why I am a passionate believer in a large third/charity/community sector and a small state). But it is important that the governmental policies encourage saving, even if the encouragement needs a third party.

As you say, cultures are hard to change. Actually I think it's quite easy to let cultures decay; the difficult bit is to rebuild good cultures. It's why I get animated about governmental policy that damages those hard won cultures.

(PS - to avoid ambiguity, each use of culture in this post relates to widespread, societal habits, not ethnicity or other meanings of "culture").

SGE1

This is, pardon my language, a regressive crock of !!!!!!.

The only people this benefits are those who already save not inconsiderable amounts - above the £3.6k/year ISA threshold. Not only are these people probably already fairly well-off (and so why should they not pay tax, basically?), but it in no way encourages people who don't normally save to do so. People who don't have saving habits aren't suddenly going to decide they want to save thanks to the idea that the 3,601st pound will now be tax-free. And if they do decide to save, what are the odds of non-savers suddenly being able to muster up more that £3.6k to actually take advantage of this policy?

All in all, all this means is less money for the Government, and more money for the wealthy who already save a a fair few bob each year. Why am I surprised? I have no idea. This is Conservative text book - at least you can give them that, the !!!!!!s are consistent (consistently crap, unfortunately).

tomstickland

It's the economics of a madman I tell you.
Everyone should be borrowing, that's the path to true [strike]debt[/strike] wealth.

nickmason

SGE1 wrote: »

This is, pardon my language, a regressive crock of !!!!!!.

The only people this benefits are those who already save not inconsiderable amounts - above the £3.6k/year ISA threshold. Not only are these people probably already fairly well-off (and so why should they not pay tax, basically?), but it in no way encourages people who don't normally save to do so. People who don't have saving habits aren't suddenly going to decide they want to save thanks to the idea that the 3,601st pound will now be tax-free. And if they do decide to save, what are the odds of non-savers suddenly being able to muster up more that £3.6k to actually take advantage of this policy?

All in all, all this means is less money for the Government, and more money for the wealthy who already save a a fair few bob each year. Why am I surprised? I have no idea. This is Conservative text book - at least you can give them that, the !!!!!!s are consistent (consistently crap, unfortunately).

I'd call it progressive, myself.

ISAs are the investment vehicles of the middle class. Individuals are still taxed their savings income - unless they use a special vehicle - an ISA. For every "middle class" taxpayer who bemoans clever accountancy by the "richer", I bet there's a "lower class" taxpayer who is not taking advantage of an ISA, and is taxed on the income they accrue in their savings account. (I'd love to be proved wrong).

The point of this policy is it moves the default - it sets in mind the concept that savings can grow untaxed, and it makes that open to everyone. It's that sort of clarity that is needed to encourage people to save.

All this clever tweaking - ISAs, tax credits, etc - leaves people disengaged with their own income, and it's relationship to work. It therefore reduces their responsibility to it.

For starters, even you would agree I'm sure that any interest paid below inflation should be tax-free? Or do you honestly think we should be taxed "on our losses"?

neverdespairgirl

nickmason wrote: »

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...;)

Do you live in Shoreditch?

nickmason

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Do you live in Shoreditch?

Work in shoreditch 3 days a week, Dorset 2 days a week. Weekends invariably in the wrong place.