Regular Savers: Who's saving most?

bigadaj

Astraeus wrote: »

From your signature, you are the sort of investor I admire. One who deploys capital in the most resourceful manner possible, the funding of nascent businesses. Kudos. That you are from God's own country is both a further feather to your cap and, given your credentials, no surprise to me.

Of interest, where does one go about starting with angel investing - did you do it through your own existing network?

Don't think this was angel investing, they are established companies, primarily investment trusts I believe.

colsten

Astraeus wrote: »

A country's tax code is the set of regulations and statutes which dictate how tax is levied and collected.

Savings and the use of regular savers is an indicator as to how much disposable income an individual has which is the direct consequence, in large part, of the tax levied against their gross income.

Thank you for your explanations.

I still fail to see what savings and use of regular savers have to do with a country's tax code. In particular, I am still none the wiser what you mean by your assertion "That the OP is amongst the 'top' savers in this thread and is retired is a sad indictment of this country's tax code."

Astraeus wrote: »

A "top saver" is a wholly objective construct which, within the context of this thread, is a poster who is able to save more than the majority within the thread. Kind of like a "top" anything, really, when it comes to objective ranking.

I appreciate you might have got a bit misled by the thread title, as it seems to imply that all money that goes into regular savers would be new money. This is by no means the case, and being able to put £2,000 or £3,000 a month into Regular Savers could just mean that the person has between £24,000 and £36,000 in savings. Which isn't exactly a lot for anyone, let alone someone who has worked for 30-40 years and is now retired.

To be honest I don't understand what the OP set out to achieve. I am with Archi Bald - if anyone wants to know what the max is they can put into regular savers, the RS thread maintained by Special_Saver2 is a great place to find that information.

Astraeus wrote: »

My views on retirees and savings? God bless them both.

So where does the "sad indictment" come into it then? Your earlier statement sounds much like you seem to think that retirees are not being taxed enough and/or that they should not have savings that they can distribute across Regular Savers?

Astraeus

colsten wrote: »

I still fail to see what savings and use of regular savers have to do with a country's tax code. In particular, I am still none the wiser what you mean by your assertion "That the OP is amongst the 'top' savers in this thread and is retired is a sad indictment of this country's tax code."

The tax code, i.e. how tax is levied on an individual throughout their working life, is directly relevant to the income they have available to them in retirement. That is the connection. I explained in rudimentary terms what I meant by "top" and I genuinely cannot see any way of making it easier for you. She professed to putting aside upwards of £2k each month, others put aside less. She is one of the most 'saving' savers, thus by her own metric, "top".

colsten wrote: »

I appreciate you might have got a bit misled by the thread title, as it seems to imply that all money that goes into regular savers would be new money.

That is exactly what the title refers to, and what the OP meant. The recycling of existing money isn't saving. Saving is the process of foregoing immediate expenditure in order to acheive returns at a later date. That is what the OP has made out that she is doing.

colsten wrote: »

To be honest I don't understand what the OP set out to achieve.

I suspect she just wanted to lord it over people who don't have £2k per month to set aside.

colsten wrote: »

So where does the "sad indictment" come into it then? Your earlier statement sounds much like you seem to think that retirees are not being taxed enough and/or that they should not have savings that they can distribute across Regular Savers?

See the above comments. I have no unease about retirees having savings. I do however struggle with the notion that retirees can, through lax taxation of unproductive capital, attain a rate of continued saving (as discrete from returns on existing investments) beyond the wildest dreams of most working people, only for that money to be (in all probability) the basis of inherited wealth which only furthers the huge gulf in this country between the haves and the have-nots.

Ashen

Although tempted, I'm not going to quote a load of the nonsense Astraeus is posting, as it just looks to produce more nonsense. The percentage of tax imposed on savings wasn't even mentioned prior to that post.

I have family members who are retired, have very little income in retirement, but with guidance have set up many of these 'regular savings' accounts just to try to make the most of what they do have.

Astraeus

Ashen wrote: »

Although tempted, I'm not going to quote a load of the nonsense Astraeus is posting, as it just looks to produce more nonsense. The percentage of tax imposed on savings wasn't even mentioned prior to that post.

I have family members who are retired, have very little income in retirement, but with guidance have set up many of these 'regular savings' accounts just to try to make the most of what they do have.

And that's the difference. The OP is clearly talking about having income in excess of £2k, which is something you indicate your family members do not have.

I still haven't mentioned the level of tax imposed on savings...what on earth are you reading?! :huh:

Yawn.

EDIT: It is too far to say that the OP is "clearly" talking about it being income as opposed to a redistribution of savings but it is certainly to be inferred.

Ashen

There was nothing in this thread on tax until you mentioned "tax code". To quote you: what on earth are you reading?! :huh:

For what it's worth, if they really were saving an additional £2150 a month, then the OP would be getting the 6% HSBC Saver rate, not 4%.

Astraeus

Ashen wrote: »

There was nothing in this thread on tax until you mentioned "tax code". To quote you: what on earth are you reading?! :huh:

Riiiiight. So you originally said "The percentage of tax imposed on savings wasn't even mentioned prior to that post." So where did I mention "the percentage of tax imposed on savings"? Or are you going to play a little game of diversion in the hope that I'll forget you blatantly misquoted me? :cool:

B_G_B

Astraeus wrote: »

And that's the difference. The OP is clearly talking about having income in excess of £2k, which is something you indicate your family members do not have.

EDIT: It is too far to say that the OP is "clearly" talking about it being income as opposed to a redistribution of savings but it is certainly to be inferred.

The OP stated that the money is being drip fed from existing savings. See post 10. It would appear that OP has been deleting posts, which makes the reading of this thread somewhat misleading.

Ashen

Astraeus wrote: »

Riiiiight. So you originally said "The percentage of tax imposed on savings wasn't even mentioned prior to that post." So where did I mention "the percentage of tax imposed on savings"? Or are you going to play a little game of diversion in the hope that I'll forget you blatantly misquoted me? :cool:

Diversion appears to be what you're doing now, I didn't misquote you at all, you just used two vague words "tax code" that can be interpreted in different ways. But it doesn't matter anyway because nothing to do with tax was mentioned.

I do appear to have fallen into the trap of replying to your nonsense though.

Astraeus

B_G_B wrote: »

The OP stated that the money is being drip fed from existing savings. See post 10. It would appear that OP has been deleting posts, which makes the reading of this thread somewhat misleading.

Good spot B_G_B, thank you. In which case my comments regarding the tax code are not relevant to this post, but remain my views nevertheless.

As to Ashen, it's axiomatic from the above posts what happened.

You took umbrage with something I didn't actually say, misquoted me and got pulled up on it. You can hardly argue that the words "tax code" are open to interpretation when I actually defined what I meant by that very term earlier in this thread. :T