Tax on Savings to rise?

moneyfoolish

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I guessed they will need more money from somewhere for Daves 'Money no Object' promise when Tory on Thames got flooded, and Osborne's promising our cheque book to the Ukraine.

Does anyone really expect either of those promises to be kept? Or am I just too cynical?

ColdIron

talexuser wrote: »

I cannot see how the debt can be reduced without tax rises

You cannot tax a nation into prosperity

Before the debt can be reduced you have to eliminate the deficit, broadly speaking this can be achieved by higher tax and or lower spending, party politics will determine the ratio

Only then could you tackle the debt, but the numbers are so eye-wateringly large that a continuation of austerity or ruinous tax levels would take decades and will never survive political expediency

The only realistic solution is to reduce its value rather than its amount

Allow me to introduce debt's glamorous assistants - inflation and devaluation

Tax alone is the solution to nothing

talexuser

ColdIron wrote: »

Tax alone is the solution to nothing

Hmmm, I agree entirely with inflation etc, so it's a good thing I didn't suggest tax ALONE was any kind of answer. The rock bottom rates will be kept hell or high water until kicking or screaming inflation takes off or our borrowing rates become out of control (cf hot potato dropping "forward guidance" based on specific unemployment). But I think the middle will still be squeezed in stealth ways (not indexing fully, give with one hand, take more with the other etc) while the multinationals will get away with their tricks and serious tax avoidance will only get lip service attention - no change there then.

Glen_Clark

ColdIron wrote: »

Allow me to introduce debt's glamorous assistants - inflation and devaluation

We are past introduction as we are well acquainted with inflation and devaluation. But no doubt we are going to get better acquainted.

Glen_Clark

talexuser wrote: »

the level of growth from services and inflated house prices without REALLY significant export growth has not got a chance.

But you can't have significant export growth and inflated house prices, because its impossible to compete on price with countries that have far lower housing costs.
There is another factor too which makes it a double whammy for the economy. Housing costs have to be provided on benefits because its no longer acceptable to have homeless women and children. With housing costs as high if not higher than the basic wage you cannot raise the differential between the level of benefits and the basic wage, to provide a financial incentive to work.
We have already reached the stage where for many people the only way to guarantee their own place is to have kids so they can claim benefits.

bigadaj

Capital gains tax on owner occupied property, that's the answer.

grizzly1911

bigadaj wrote: »

Capital gains tax on owner occupied property, that's the answer.

Instead of or on top of IHT?

Instead of or on top of SDLT?

Gain assessed on original value/purchase price index linked to inflation from purchase as the start point or just from gain from nominal purchase price/value?

guymo

talexuser wrote: »

(cf hot potato dropping "forward guidance" based on specific unemployment).

This kind of statement is utterly misleading. The BoE has not "dropped" its forward guidance, it has done what it said it would do: reviewing the implementation of monetary policy once unemployment (seems to) reduce to 7%.

Anyone who does not believe me, having read something different in the newspapers, may like to read instead the actual forward guidance statements.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/Pages/forwardguidance.aspx

A quote from the August 2013 forward guidance document may help:

In recognition of the fact that no single variable can provide a comprehensive indication of current economic conditions, the 7% unemployment rate is set as a ‘threshold’, not a ‘trigger’: that is, reaching the threshold will not automatically result in a rise in Bank Rate. Instead, the MPC will reassess whether or not to raise Bank Rate above 0.5% in light of its assessment of the economic outlook.

planteria

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Apparently Osborne wants to rename National Insurance 'Earnings Tax'

is there a link re. this?

what we can be sure of is that a Tory-led coalition or a Tory government will be better for savers/investors, long-term, than the obvious alternative. they are well aware that the population needs to save & invest more..so they have to encourage that. simplification can help, and can be 'free';)

Glen_Clark

planteria wrote: »

is there a link re. this?

what we can be sure of is that a Tory-led coalition or a Tory government will be better for savers/investors, long-term, than the obvious alternative. they are well aware that the population needs to save & invest more..so they have to encourage that. simplification can help, and can be 'free';)

link here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10658144/National-Insurance-reform-could-cost-us-dear.html

also Cameron's broken promises to savers costs £68bn: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10457090/Camerons-broken-promise-to-savers-costs-68bn.html

I think its pretty clear the current Government favours property owners over savers, which is the biggest long term threat to the economy.
By inflating house prices Osborne has created an unaffordable Housing Benefits cost. Its not just the ever increasing rents, but the fact that for many people the only way to get a house is to have kids and go on benefits. In many places the basic wage doesn't cover housing costs any more. We cannot create enough differential between the basic wage and benefits to make a financial incentive to work.
Osborne's politcal wheezes to increase taxes won't be enough to stave off the long term crisis. We need to get housing costs back into proportion to the rest of the economy.
Germany didn't become the economic powerhouse of Europe by inflating its house prices!!!!!!!