Are the ISA rules really that complicated?

bigfreddiel

Are the ISA rules really that complicated or are people too lazy to read them?

Judging by the queries on this forum there's something wrong somewhere - how can it be corrected?

fj

jimjames

Some of the rules about transfers can be but most queries seem to be about terminology.

The basics seem pretty simple.

1 cash &/or 1 S&S ISA per year. Not sure how much simpler it could be!

lisyloo

The terminology is confusing as it says you can contribute to only one cash ISA during the tax year, but that appears to be untrue, you can transfer so as long as you only have one active then that's fine.
It's actually not complication but I think some of the Inland Revenue terminology confuses people.

psychic_teabag

I think defining the rules in terms of an obscure word "subscription" is unhelpful.

And part of the problem is that it's *not* one cash ISA per year. We see many questions along the lines of "How can I transfer my ISA since I have already used my allowance this year. I'm only allowed one ISA per year, aren't I ?".

"All the current year's subscriptions must stay together" seems to be the fundamental rule. I think the rest follow from that, don't they ? [Implies you can only subscribe to one per year, and if you transfer it you must transfer it all, and then continue paying into the new one.]

grey_gym_sock

they should simplify it by removing all the restrictions on how many ISAs you can have, or how much you can contribute, or whether you can split them, and at the same time removing all the tax exemptions for ISAs.

yes, i realize i'm probably the only person on this forum who thinks this.

innovate

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

they should simplify it by removing all the restrictions on how many ISAs you can have, or how much you can contribute, or whether you can split them, and at the same time removing all the tax exemptions for ISAs.

yes, i realize i'm probably the only person on this forum who thinks this.

what you are asking for exists, it's called savings accounts.

Why do yo want to do away with ISAs?

innovate

It's all quite confusing, and use of "foreign" language like"subscription" really doesn't help. It could be described a lot simpler.

Having said all this, I reckon about 95% of the questions about ISAs on here are from people who are too lazy to do even 10 minutes of their own research. This doesn't seem be limited to ISAs, you get the same sort of thing on many other subjects.

Don't have any suggestions on how to improve things.............

grey_gym_sock

innovate wrote: »

Why do yo want to do away with ISAs?

to make the tax system simpler and fairer. instead of tax exemptions for ISAs, increase the personal allowance or basic rate band, or reduce the tax rates. allowances and bands are all you need to tax income at sensible rates.

why should ppl with plenty of savings (like me) be able to put more and more of it outside the scope of direct taxation every year?

why are there ISAs for investment income but not for earned income? i.e. why can't i put my earnings between 09:00 and 10:00 on mondays into an ISA, so i don't pay income tax on it? and next year also put in 10:00-11:00 on mondays, so that i have 2 hours of tax-free earnings per week?

it's madness!

droopsnoot

innovate wrote: »

Having said all this, I reckon about 95% of the questions about ISAs on here are from people who are too lazy to do even 10 minutes of their own research. This doesn't seem be limited to ISAs, you get the same sort of thing on many other subjects.

Yes, and on pretty much all forums anywhere, even when the subject is already covered in depth on that same forum. I'm not sure I'd use the word "lazy" though, sometimes people aren't familiar with the subject, look into it a bit, drop on somewhere like this where there are lots of other people asking questions and getting useful answers, and seek confirmation of what they might already have found but not been sure about. That's the trouble with being high in search results unfortunately.