We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
In need of advice
Comments
-
gadgetmind wrote: »For me it was the tax advantages.
And who says romance is dead! :rotfl:0 -
Savings of £100K wouldn't generate enough interest to attract tax.
If she suffers from stress, then I this would be the last thing she would want to deal with.grey_gym_sock wrote: »investments in a mixture of equities, especially equity income, and corporate bonds, could give a yield of 4% or 5%, with both income and capital value likely to at least keep up with inflation in the longer term. both income and capital value would go up and down, though. a buffer should be kept in savings accounts to cover variations in income. capital value is more volatile than income; you have to learn to live with the fluctuations (and not sell everything when it's gone down). this could be done via funds (unit trusts / OEICs).
I doubt that she would want to risk any of her capital.
I'm quite a 'money saver' - but £300 a month for - council tax, gas, electricity, water rates, phone, house insurance, car insurance, car tax would be impossible for us.My OH and I have no mortgage.
Our outgoings are tops £300 per month without food.
Then of course there's the cost of putting petrol/diesel in the car.
Our council tax is £219 for a start.
Edit: Oops I put mortgage instead of council tax.
0 -
It's often more expensive to live for a single person. Although she will get a council tax reduction as a single person. A job would be ideal as it will get her away from the empty home or flat and give her a social life plus reduce any financial worries. At 55 she is still a young woman. I wish I was 55 again.0
-
grey_gym_sock wrote: »it's almost as if the tax and benefit system is designed to encourage richer ppl to get married and poorer ppl to stay single.
Or encourage poorer people to get richer!I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »Or encourage poorer people to get richer!
superfluous, really, since being richer already has the advantage that, er, then you have more money ...
0 -
grey_gym_sock wrote: »it's almost as if the tax and benefit system is designed to encourage richer ppl to get married and poorer ppl to stay single.
may be more accurate to say 'get' single as kids seem to be essential to make a life on benefits.“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
grey_gym_sock wrote: »superfluous, really, since being richer already has the advantage that, er, then you have more money ...
Yes but there's all that pesky having to pay attention at school to then spend your life getting out of bed even though it's still dark so you can tootle off to do lots of work.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
For a 'single' woman the quickest way to do that is often to get pregnant and say she doesn't know who the father is.gadgetmind wrote: »Or encourage poorer people to get richer!“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »It means you can keep investments in the name of the partner that pays the least tax. In my case my wife doesn't work, so she gets all of our unwrapped savings and investments.
Would I do this if we weren't married? Probably not!
Lots of our taxation is heavily stacked against couples where there is income asymmetry: going into higher tax bands is just on one income, ditto losing your personal allowance and family allowance.
However, taxation as a couple is *very* difficult to implement and would lose HMG a lot of income.
Good point. I recall something about Phillip Green putting his income bearing assets in his wife's name, who is a resident of Monaco so pays little tax.“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
If I had to put all my assets in someone else's name it would be my mum.
She is financially a novice, but the only person in the world I would never worry about robbing me.:o“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards