Are ISA's under threat from Govt austerity measures?

lisyloo

Maybe this is linked to the new employer pension contribution guidelines

I can't see why.

Giveth and taketh away

There is nothing new being given.

One would imagine company cars will also be targeted.

Company cars are already taxed.

Would it be a sensible approach to max your ISA allowances and pension contributions over the next two years?

One has to take everything in context.
The max pension contributions are 100% so for most people this does not make sense as they need to eat and live.
There are many advantages and disadvantages of pensions will all need to be taken into account.
One of the big disadvantages of pensions are that you cannot touch your money until retirement age even if you are starving and homeless and even then the government can change that age as and when they see fit.
So you need to take a lot of things into account.

I personally don't see ISA allowances as being under threat.
But higher rate pension benefits I do as they benefit the better off which policitically doesn't go down too well, although bear in mind it benefits them more because they are paying more tax in the first place.

Using higher rate pension relief and using ISAs are sensible things to do anyway, but in the context of all the pros and cons and your individual situation.

dunstonh

There are no hints in the financial media of the ISA being at risk. There is no reason to pull it. It was actually a conservative Govt that introduced the predecessor to the ISA (ISA really only being a change of the existing rules with TESSA and PEP with Gordon Brown wanting to use a different name to make it his. Initially, the ISA was less favourable than TESSA & PEP).

There have been murmurings of a suggestion that pensions and ISAs could be replaced with a single lifetime saving plan that is tax free but no tax relief. But that was more think tank than proposal or suggestion from ministers.

The agenda at the moment is more against the benefit culture. It has to be really as both the middle and the top end are paying more in taxes already and there is only so far you can go. Yes they can squeeze a little more here and there but it can be easier to look at the costs and benefits have spiralled out of control.

lisyloo

The agenda at the moment is more against the benefit culture.

I agree.
Pensions encourage people to save for their retirement, the tax "break" only gives them relief on what they would otherwise pay in tax.
ISAs also encourge people to save.

Benefits and welfare are going to spiral out of control if we are not careful especially with an ageing population.
Also as people get squeezed there is an appetite to clamp down on those who want to sponge (I am NOT saying all benefits claimants are spongers, my MIL has worked 58 years and is not a sponger).

premierfella

I doubt that ISAs are under any sort of threat, despite the fact that I'm sure the government would be far happier at the present time if we were spending our money rather than saving it tax-free. The introduction of the Junior ISA to replace the Child Trust Fund seems a strong hint to me that ISAs are here for the forseeable future. The lost tax revenue is in any case probably dwarfed by the level of cuts in welfare spending that the government is looking at, and if ISAs went some of the ISA money would find its way into the obvious alternative anyway (pensions).

It would be logical for the Chancellor to overhaul ISAs and introduce maximum caps on ISA holdings, but I think it is more likely that any change would be a "TESSA/PEP to ISA" style introduction of a "new" less generous "ISA v2" for future savings. Even so, I can't see GO being brave enough to do even this given that it flies in the face of normal right-wing Conservative policy on savings.

le_loup

Ops! I think I've logged on to the Daily Mail.
What a mistake to make.

dunstonh

le_loup wrote: »

Ops! I think I've logged on to the Daily Mail.
What a mistake to make.

Nah. Not Daily Mail. No so called celebrities in underwear or sensationalist headlines by an unnamed reporter where the article contains nothing suggested by the headline and no facts.

nicknameless

Sapphire wrote: »

The government also needs to clamp down on benefits 'tourists'. So far there has been little mention of them, yet with their large families they are a massive drain on the taxpayer and on the NHS.

It is not right that non-indigenous people should be given so much free at the expense of (mostly) the indigenous population.

Can you give us some figures. How much is 'so much'?

And who are these 'indigenous population'?

meanbean

ISAs = savings i.e. for people who can afford to put some money away. Osbourne is mainly about making poorer people worse off. Ergo ISAs will not be touched.

Sapphire

nicknameless wrote: »

Can you give us some figures. How much is 'so much'?

And who are these 'indigenous population'?

I could easily get into a discussion with you about this subject, but as someone has rightly pointed out, it would be off topic given the subject of the thread – which is why I have also deleted my post.

By the way, your third sentence should read 'And what is this "indigenous population"?' (or 'And what are these "indigenous populations"?') to be grammatically correct. 'Indigenous' means 'native' or 'of this place'.

innovate

Sapphire wrote: »

I could easily get into a discussion with you about this subject, but as someone has rightly pointed out, it would be off topic given the subject of the thread – which is why I have also deleted my post.

By the way, your third sentence should read 'And what is this 'indigenous population?' (or 'And what are these 'indigenous populations?') to be grammatically correct. 'Indigenous' means 'native' or 'of this place'.

How about you set up a new thread somewhere, and post a link to it here, to discuss the 'indigenous population' of the British Isles?