Tax on Savings to rise?

planteria

thank you for the links Glen

Glen_Clark wrote: »

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.

do you really pin all of that on George Osborne?

Glen_Clark wrote: »

We cannot create enough differential between the basic wage and benefits to make a financial incentive to work.

that is what IDS is all over, and is making progress. the culture is very deeply ingrained, but must be tackled.

le_loup

planteria wrote: »

... 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 ...

Show me some proof of any of that statement.
... and even were it true, the holy grail of growth comes not from saving but from spending.

zagfles

planteria wrote: »

thank you for the links Glen



do you really pin all of that on George Osborne?

Gordon Brown was just as bad - setting the BoE an inflation target (CPI) which excluded house prices.

zagfles

giffnockhibee wrote: »

I suspect Osborne's plan is to merge NICs and Income Tax, so that the new tax will catch those in retirement, who generally do not pay NICs.

There's no chance of that happening, that's why they're calling it an earnings tax. It would be political suicide. Not with pensions anyway - it's possible the "earnings tax" will apply to people over SPA who are working - whereas employee NI doesn't apply now. But probably not as the grey vote is very powerful.

zagfles

grizzly1911 wrote: »

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?

I'd do it on top of both (perhaps with a lower SDLT rate or properly tiered rather than cliff edge), but with carry forwards to a new property so people aren't stung paying GCT when they move upmarket.

For instance, buy a house for £100k, sell for £150k, buy a new house for £200k within a reasonable period (6 months?) and the gain on the first house is carried forwards. So from a GCT point of view the purchase price of the second house was £150k, as that's how much has been put into property.

On moving downmarket the realised gain is the proportion of property value realised. For instance sell the second house for £300k and buy a £200k property, a gain of £150k in total has been made (£50k on first house, £100k on second) of which a third is realised, so tax would apply on £50k.

On death or moving abroad GCT would apply on the total gain.

This sort of scheme works on other countries and helps stop people looking on their house as an investment and more a place to live, and keeps prices reasonable.

talexuser

planteria wrote: »

that is what IDS is all over, and is making progress.

Progress by writing off 40 million on useless IT:

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/12/09/coming-apart-at-the-seams-ids-hauled-to-parliament-amid-new

Progress by increasing the cost from 2 billion to 13 billion:

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240185166/Universal-Credit-will-cost-taxpayers-128bn

Progress introducing UC late and in microscopic quantities on manual spreadsheets instead of the timescales and technology promised:

http://www.cio.co.uk/news/change-management/universal-credit-calculations-will-be-done-manually-with-spreadsheets/

Not at all arguing that a necessary reform of the benefits system is not needed. It is.

Just the idea that IDS is a competent minister to have in charge is frankly laughable. He is having the same "success" he had a tory leader :rotfl:

Glen_Clark

planteria wrote: »

thank you for the links Glen



do you really pin all of that on George Osborne?

House prices have taken off from their already inflated base, due to Osborne's taxpayer guarantee for sub prime mortgages, his so called 'Help to Buy'

planteria wrote: »

that is what IDS is all over, and is making progress.

'Progress' seems to have stalled with even ATOS pulling out. Whoever he gets to replace them will demand an even greater fee. And they cannot get over the problem where the basic wage does not cover housing costs, wheras benefits have to do. Because it is no longer acceptable to put women and children out on the street.

zagfles

talexuser wrote: »

Progress by writing off 40 million on useless IT:

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/12/09/coming-apart-at-the-seams-ids-hauled-to-parliament-amid-new

Progress by increasing the cost from 2 billion to 13 billion:

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240185166/Universal-Credit-will-cost-taxpayers-128bn

Progress introducing UC late and in microscopic quantities on manual spreadsheets instead of the timescales and technology promised:

http://www.cio.co.uk/news/change-management/universal-credit-calculations-will-be-done-manually-with-spreadsheets/

Not at all arguing that a necessary reform of the benefits system is not needed. It is.

Just the idea that IDS is a competent minister to have in charge is frankly laughable. He is having the same "success" he had a tory leader :rotfl:

Well he's got a long way to go to beat the £10billion wasted on the NHS system by the last govt :eek:

Govt IT projects are always a disaster, the scale of this one is no worse than those we've seen in the past. We're still waiting for the tax credits online system promised 10 years ago :rotfl:

bigadaj

grizzly1911 wrote: »

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?

All fairly minor details and up for review and down to individual preference I suppose.

It woudk stop people considering property as such a simple alternative to a pension for a start.

I'd have it as in addition to iht, though not duplicated.

In addition to stamp duty, on that regard it's no different to shares after all.

Current system is to use it gross, I prefer index linked as it once was,a nd think this should also apply to other capital gains, teh current system encourages short termism to a great extent.

cepheus

jackyann wrote: »

I am of the generation that believed we paid NI contributions, as insurance for unemployment, sickness & disability & for a pension. That is as it was intended for the best part of the 20th century, and that is why I believe I am "entitled" to my State Pension, and for maternity benefit (the only other one I ever claimed)

Whilst this new suggestion recognises that the NI pot has not been run as it should by successive governments, I would be sorry to see NI go. I believe the next step is scrap any "entitlement" to benefits, and give them only to the needy; we will then all pay into private insurance schemes, which will cherry-pick, and the devil take the hindmost.

A fair amount goes into paying into the NHS (in place of health insurance) and the cost of policing and the forces. Perhaps its the work tax which should be abolished, and the word 'national insurance' added for the complete contribution, which more accurately describes what it is used for.