Proposed £100k ISA lifetime limit

expansion

Albermarle said:

expansion said:

Albermarle said:

ayvan said:

£100,000 is rich? You can not buy a barn for £100,000. In UK it is not clever to work and earn and save for normal person. Better live the life, you can be lazy and spend everything and then ask government for money. Half your work is tax to pay for lazy.

In other countries they can only dream of protecting so much savings interest from tax. The UK has a very generous system for people to earn interest tax free. Plus the interest on offer from some banks is also better than offered in many other countries. Even if this suggestion to limit ISA's to £100K ever sees the light of day, there is still the Personal savings allowance, before any tax on interest would be paid.

The UK has one of the highest levels of taxation and must be near the very top in terms of worst return for public services. Pay like a Scandi for nothing. I don't mind a cut in tax advantage accounts if it also means a cut in income tax and national insurance not to mention the other add on tax but not tax like council tax, TV license, alcohol, sugar to balance things to other countries. Bank interest is linked to value of currency. Or maybe you see good opportunity in Zimbabwe or Venezuela?

I was not being political. Just stating a fact ( on a savings and investment forum on the topic of savings interest ) that you can earn a LOT more savings interest tax free in the UK , than in most other countries.
If you want a political comment, it would be that these very generous allowances really only significantly benefit relatively well off people.

I was not being political. Just stating a fact (on a saving and investment forum on the topic of a proposal to limit tax advantage accounts) that the UK has one of the highest levels of taxation overall and delivers comparatively little in public services. This was in response to your comment comparing the "very generous" UK tax savings to other countries without considering the bigger picture. In other countries they don't need to rely on protecting savings or investments from from tax because they pay less tax overall. Less income tax, less VAT, less everything. 

masonic

expansion said:

Albermarle said:

expansion said:

Albermarle said:

ayvan said:

£100,000 is rich? You can not buy a barn for £100,000. In UK it is not clever to work and earn and save for normal person. Better live the life, you can be lazy and spend everything and then ask government for money. Half your work is tax to pay for lazy.

In other countries they can only dream of protecting so much savings interest from tax. The UK has a very generous system for people to earn interest tax free. Plus the interest on offer from some banks is also better than offered in many other countries. Even if this suggestion to limit ISA's to £100K ever sees the light of day, there is still the Personal savings allowance, before any tax on interest would be paid.

The UK has one of the highest levels of taxation and must be near the very top in terms of worst return for public services. Pay like a Scandi for nothing. I don't mind a cut in tax advantage accounts if it also means a cut in income tax and national insurance not to mention the other add on tax but not tax like council tax, TV license, alcohol, sugar to balance things to other countries. Bank interest is linked to value of currency. Or maybe you see good opportunity in Zimbabwe or Venezuela?

I was not being political. Just stating a fact ( on a savings and investment forum on the topic of savings interest ) that you can earn a LOT more savings interest tax free in the UK , than in most other countries.
If you want a political comment, it would be that these very generous allowances really only significantly benefit relatively well off people.

I was not being political. Just stating a fact (on a saving and investment forum on the topic of a proposal to limit tax advantage accounts) that the UK has one of the highest levels of taxation overall and delivers comparatively little in public services. This was in response to your comment comparing the "very generous" UK tax savings to other countries without considering the bigger picture. In other countries they don't need to rely on protecting savings or investments from from tax because they pay less tax overall. Less income tax, less VAT, less everything. 

According to the OECD, UK tax revenue was 33% of GDP in 2019 and is on a course to rise to 35% by 2025/26. This is below the average of the G7 (36%) and close to the average for the 38 OECD countries (34%). Though you'll hear little argument from me that we are getting less than we should delivered in terms of public services. We really need to address that last part as the priority in my view. That will probably mean spending more, and any 'cuts' in the short term will be more of a sleight of hand than anything of substance.

hoc

masonic said:

expansion said:

Albermarle said:

expansion said:

Albermarle said:

ayvan said:

£100,000 is rich? You can not buy a barn for £100,000. In UK it is not clever to work and earn and save for normal person. Better live the life, you can be lazy and spend everything and then ask government for money. Half your work is tax to pay for lazy.

In other countries they can only dream of protecting so much savings interest from tax. The UK has a very generous system for people to earn interest tax free. Plus the interest on offer from some banks is also better than offered in many other countries. Even if this suggestion to limit ISA's to £100K ever sees the light of day, there is still the Personal savings allowance, before any tax on interest would be paid.

The UK has one of the highest levels of taxation and must be near the very top in terms of worst return for public services. Pay like a Scandi for nothing. I don't mind a cut in tax advantage accounts if it also means a cut in income tax and national insurance not to mention the other add on tax but not tax like council tax, TV license, alcohol, sugar to balance things to other countries. Bank interest is linked to value of currency. Or maybe you see good opportunity in Zimbabwe or Venezuela?

I was not being political. Just stating a fact ( on a savings and investment forum on the topic of savings interest ) that you can earn a LOT more savings interest tax free in the UK , than in most other countries.
If you want a political comment, it would be that these very generous allowances really only significantly benefit relatively well off people.

I was not being political. Just stating a fact (on a saving and investment forum on the topic of a proposal to limit tax advantage accounts) that the UK has one of the highest levels of taxation overall and delivers comparatively little in public services. This was in response to your comment comparing the "very generous" UK tax savings to other countries without considering the bigger picture. In other countries they don't need to rely on protecting savings or investments from from tax because they pay less tax overall. Less income tax, less VAT, less everything. 

According to the OECD, UK tax revenue was 33% of GDP in 2019 and is on a course to rise to 35% by 2025/26. This is below the average of the G7 (36%) and close to the average for the 38 OECD countries (34%). Though you'll hear little argument from me that we are getting less than we should delivered in terms of public services. We really need to address that last part as the priority in my view. That will probably mean spending more, and any 'cuts' in the short term will be more of a sleight of hand than anything of substance.

Having good knowledge about the quality of life and benefits in a number of the countries on this list from extended stays and  close friends living there it's shocking that the UK is 33% when the Scandinavian average is 41%. Comparing to some countries I'm very familiar with we pay too much for nothing and not enough for anything. It would not be my preferred choice but perhaps a more realistic alternative solution is to cut loses and change strategy instead of trying to keep up with the current model.

masonic

hoc said:

Having good knowledge about the quality of life and benefits in a number of the countries on this list from extended stays and  close friends living there it's shocking that the UK is 33% when the Scandinavian average is 41%. Comparing to some countries I'm very familiar with we pay too much for nothing and not enough for anything. It would not be my preferred choice but perhaps a more realistic alternative solution is to cut loses and change strategy instead of trying to keep up with the current model.

You don't have to think back very far to remember a system that worked a lot better for a lower overall tax burden. It doesn't take a great deal of cynicism to posit that running public services into the ground could be a deliberate strategy to lead the public into this manner of thinking. The NHS and state pension between them consume about a third of the tax take in the UK, add in social care and it rises to about half. But these are very popular public services, especially amongst the elderly who vote in large numbers. Hopefully it is not too late to reverse course.

hallmark

There are interesting stats (that annoyingly I can't find easily to illustrate my point) which show the number of public sector employees per person in the USA today compared to in the 50s.  It's astronomical (and a reasonably safe bet that the same applies in the UK).  And continuing to rise.  It's hard to think of anything good that has come from those increases, and very easy to think of lots of bad things that have.

The problem (from my perspective anyway) is that there is literally no party in favour of a smaller state anymore.  All parties are in favour of ever more Government and the only difference is in degrees. 

Linton

hallmark said:

There are interesting stats (that annoyingly I can't find easily to illustrate my point) which show the number of public sector employees per person in the USA today compared to in the 50s.  It's astronomical (and a reasonably safe bet that the same applies in the UK).  And continuing to rise.  It's hard to think of anything good that has come from those increases, and very easy to think of lots of bad things that have.

The problem (from my perspective anyway) is that there is literally no party in favour of a smaller state anymore.  All parties are in favour of ever more Government and the only difference is in degrees. 

Perhaps you should check the data -
 see https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/compendium/economicreview/april2019/longtermtrendsinukemployment1861to2018#:~:text=The primary sector share of,51.5% in 1920, respectively.

There you will find that the state sector in 2018 was 5.4M and in 1968 was 6.18M
Private sector in 2018  27M, 1968, 18.72

So number of state employees per private sector employee 1968: 0.33 and in 2018: 0.2

population in 2018: 66.64M, 1968: 55.17M

So public sector employees/person: 1968: 0.11, 2018: 0.08

hallmark

Do those figures include everybody who works in public service regardless how it's described?  For example council workers?  people who work in any of the endless Trusts? Quangos? People who work for private companies that carry out almost nothing but work on Government contracts?  Contractors and consultants working for Government departments? I was amazed when I found out from a friend who works at OFGEM just how many of these there are, and how much they're paid.

I honestly don't know so this is an actual question, not a rhetorical one.   But I would be very surprised if they're all included in official figures.  If you have them, please provide a breakdown of the figures.

Linton

hallmark said:

Do those figures include everybody who works in public service regardless how it's described?  For example council workers?  people who work in any of the endless Trusts? Quangos? People who work for private companies that carry out almost nothing but work on Government contracts?  Contractors and consultants working for Government departments? I was amazed when I found out from a friend who works at OFGEM just how many of these there are, and how much they're paid.

I honestly don't know so this is an actual question, not a rhetorical one.   But I would be very surprised if they they're all included in official figures.  If you have them, please provide a breakdown of the figures.

I dont know the precise definitions either but I will leave that exercise to you. If you wish to dispute data from an authoritative source like the ONS you need to put together a pretty strong case.

IanManc

Linton said:

hallmark said:

Do those figures include everybody who works in public service regardless how it's described?  For example council workers?  people who work in any of the endless Trusts? Quangos? People who work for private companies that carry out almost nothing but work on Government contracts?  Contractors and consultants working for Government departments? I was amazed when I found out from a friend who works at OFGEM just how many of these there are, and how much they're paid.

I honestly don't know so this is an actual question, not a rhetorical one.   But I would be very surprised if they they're all included in official figures.  If you have them, please provide a breakdown of the figures.

I dont know the precise definitions either but I will leave that exercise to you. If you wish to dispute data from an authoritative source like the ONS you need to put together a pretty strong case.

The number of public employees isn't being disputed. The point is that a lot of jobs that were done by public employees have now been outsourced, so people like cleaners and catering staff in hospitals and government departments, for example, stopped being "public employees" overnight when the outsourced contracts came into effect, even though they were the same people doing the same jobs in the same place for the same money, all of which was ultimately funded by taxation.

Malthusian

In the 1960s travel agents, car manufacturers and sugar factory workers were public sector employees. Any comparison of the payroll between then and now is going to be meaningless, no matter whether you're arguing for a bigger or smaller state.
The USA went through fewer nationalisations and privatisations than we did, so I imagine a comparison over there is slightly more coherent, but still not very useful. 
What is undeniable is that people expect far more of the state than they have done at any point in the last 60 years.

hallmark said:
The problem (from my perspective anyway) is that there is literally no party in favour of a smaller state anymore.  All parties are in favour of ever more Government and the only difference is in degrees. 

On this part at least you are indisputably correct. There has never in history been a mainstream libertarian political party. Nobody spends their career climbing a tree so they can chop it down, and nobody seeks power in order to give away power.