Budget 2015

Naughty_Noonoo

Rollinghome wrote: »

Standard rate payers will save 20% of £1000 = £200.

Higher rate payers will save 40% of £500 = £200.

Typing error, thank you for pointing it out....not a good sign for when the tax returns go paperless.

Naughty_Noonoo

TheTracker wrote: »

More like 30k in high street banks. Or 10k in p2p. Not huge amounts of money.

I long for the day when I can refer to 10k or 30k as being 'not huge amounts of money'.


Sadly for me like many others this policy will provide no gain whatsoever.

Mr_K

Rollinghome wrote: »

Standard rate payers will save 20% of £1000 = £200.

Higher rate payers will save 40% of £500 = £200.

And millions lost from more deserving causes like the NHS. No matter as long as the millionaire cabinet gets re-elected, the NHS isn't something they need to worry about.

jimjames

TheTracker wrote: »

More like 30k in high street banks. Or 10k in p2p. Not huge amounts of money.

I think the 70% of people who have no savings or under £2000 would certainly call it a lot of money.

Porcupine

colsten wrote: »

I'll give you a couple of other reasons

1. future-proofing (higher/additional rate payers don't pay tax on ISAs; taxation outside ISAs could be re-introduced)
2. there is more to ISAs than just cash ISAs.

My worry in the weakening attraction of cash ISAs is they no longer function as a 'gateway drug'. For a long time, people put cash into cash ISAs because it was the obvious way to save. Then, when they got a bit more financially savvy, they could transfer it to S&S ISAs.

Now, the S&S ISA limit hasn't gone up that much from pre-NISA days. So people might find they have a decent savings pot in non-ISA cash, but they can't transfer it to S&S without waiting multiple years, or having to do it unwrapped (which is much more complicated to manage and offputting to the unwary).

Another twist on this is P2P becomes more attractive for many people, assuming that falls under HMRC's definition of 'savings'.

Glen_Clark

Reaper wrote: »

Help to buy ISA - argh! Terrible idea.

All the "Help to buy" schemes are an illusion. With limited supply all it means is house prices go up in line with the buyers extra cash. No extra person gets to buy a house and we all have to pay increased taxes to pay for this idiotic giveaway.

I wish the government would stop interfering in the housing market.

Unfortunately thats only the start.
Pumping up house prices with taxpayers money also pumps up Housing Benefit costs - a double whammy for the taxpayer.
It encourages people to have kids to claim Housing Benefit because its the only way they can afford their own pace - a triple whammy for the taxpayer
And, as if all thats not bad enough, we have skilled young professionals - just the people the economy needs, emigrating because they are fed up of spending half their salary on rent and commuting.
Being replaced by - unskilled migrants claiming yet more benefits.
I'm beginning to understand how Osborne has managed to double the National Debt - 300 years worth - in just 5 years.

Rollinghome

Reaper wrote: »

Help to buy ISA - argh! Terrible idea.

Don't worry, as the Independent points out here, "The earliest you’ll be able to qualify for £3,000 from the Government will be sometime in 2020".

That is to say not until the time of the election after the next election. Won't help first-time buyers but makes a good headline.

colsten

Glen_Clark wrote: »

And, as if all thats not bad enough, we have skilled young professionals - just the people the economy needs, emigrating because they are fed up of spending half their salary on rent and commuting.
Being replaced by - unskilled migrants claiming yet more benefits.

what a lot of xenophobic piffle. As if any only half successful employer would replace skilled professionals with unskilled workers, and as if all immigrants were unskilled and/or claiming benefits.

gadgetmind

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Being replaced by - unskilled migrants claiming yet more benefits.

I'm hiring highly skilled people from overseas, where they have a lot of good universities teaching STEM subjects, because the UK ones simply aren't educating enough people in the right subjects.

kidmugsy

Mr_K wrote: »

And millions lost from more deserving causes like the NHS. No matter as long as the millionaire cabinet gets re-elected, the NHS isn't something they need to worry about.

I can't see the NHS, as presently constituted, as a deserving cause. Most developed countries, bar the USA, seem to have a better Health Service than us.