Government tax receipts on interest being paid this year ??

masonic

zagfles said:

masonic said:

zagfles said:

Anyway, it was the "language" that was being complained about as if it's only used by inferior publications, not worthy of "respected investment platforms" . I keep thinking of Hyacinth Bucket

I can't speak to the contents of anyone else's mind, but I didn't read it like that. DM and DE have a reputation for sensationalism. Like the annual repeated winter warnings of an impending "arctic storm" that turns out to be a slight ground frost. In my view, the only print media that gets close to reporting accurately is the FT, because its target clientele are in the business of making expensive investment decisions and need to know the truth. You'll sometimes find economic news reported there that is unrecognisable when covered elsewhere.

The DE certainly has where it comes to weather, but then so are a lot of the media when they make out the latest heatwave, downpour or storm is a sign of worse to come. But on finance, DM personal finance stuff is usually pretty good compared to most papers, they have the likes of Steve Webb writing articles often quoted here. Not at the level of the FT for the more in depth stuff obviously, but for general personal finance as good as the Guardian, BBC, Telegraph etc and generally no more "sensationalist".

Agree the 'This Is Money' side of things beats most of the competition, and their weekly podcast is very measured and high quality, so credit where it is due.

cricidmuslibale

masonic said:

zagfles said:

masonic said:

zagfles said:

Anyway, it was the "language" that was being complained about as if it's only used by inferior publications, not worthy of "respected investment platforms" . I keep thinking of Hyacinth Bucket

I can't speak to the contents of anyone else's mind, but I didn't read it like that. DM and DE have a reputation for sensationalism. Like the annual repeated winter warnings of an impending "arctic storm" that turns out to be a slight ground frost. In my view, the only print media that gets close to reporting accurately is the FT, because its target clientele are in the business of making expensive investment decisions and need to know the truth. You'll sometimes find economic news reported there that is unrecognisable when covered elsewhere.

The DE certainly has where it comes to weather, but then so are a lot of the media when they make out the latest heatwave, downpour or storm is a sign of worse to come. But on finance, DM personal finance stuff is usually pretty good compared to most papers, they have the likes of Steve Webb writing articles often quoted here. Not at the level of the FT for the more in depth stuff obviously, but for general personal finance as good as the Guardian, BBC, Telegraph etc and generally no more "sensationalist".

Agree the 'This Is Money' side of things beats most of the competition, and their weekly podcast is very measured and high quality, so credit where it is due.

'This is Money', the weekly podcast and respected, experienced contributors like Steve Webb (who is a rare example of someone whose ideas are genuinely liberal) I have to agree are all clearly worth listening to or reading. However, the huge and very bleak irony for me at least is that all this genuinely useful and essentially impartial information is delivered alongside a newspaper which tends to be about as blatantly politically biased as it is possible to be! (To be fair, the DM showed a few signs of softening its usually very hard-line approach somewhat in the last year or so, only to quickly revert to its rather notorious former self with the return of its longstanding chief agitator, Mr PD.) Maybe it's just me but I much prefer to read publications which do not lean strongly in either a right wing or a left wing direction. Most importantly as far as I am concerned, I simply cannot ever, and I mean ever, forgive the DM for its clear admiration of and support for the apartheid government in South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s!

zagfles

cricidmuslibale said:

masonic said:

zagfles said:

masonic said:

zagfles said:

Anyway, it was the "language" that was being complained about as if it's only used by inferior publications, not worthy of "respected investment platforms" . I keep thinking of Hyacinth Bucket

I can't speak to the contents of anyone else's mind, but I didn't read it like that. DM and DE have a reputation for sensationalism. Like the annual repeated winter warnings of an impending "arctic storm" that turns out to be a slight ground frost. In my view, the only print media that gets close to reporting accurately is the FT, because its target clientele are in the business of making expensive investment decisions and need to know the truth. You'll sometimes find economic news reported there that is unrecognisable when covered elsewhere.

The DE certainly has where it comes to weather, but then so are a lot of the media when they make out the latest heatwave, downpour or storm is a sign of worse to come. But on finance, DM personal finance stuff is usually pretty good compared to most papers, they have the likes of Steve Webb writing articles often quoted here. Not at the level of the FT for the more in depth stuff obviously, but for general personal finance as good as the Guardian, BBC, Telegraph etc and generally no more "sensationalist".

Agree the 'This Is Money' side of things beats most of the competition, and their weekly podcast is very measured and high quality, so credit where it is due.

'This is Money', the weekly podcast and respected, experienced contributors like Steve Webb (who is a rare example of someone whose ideas are genuinely liberal) I have to agree are all clearly worth listening to or reading. However, the huge and very bleak irony for me at least is that all this genuinely useful and essentially impartial information is delivered alongside a newspaper which tends to be about as blatantly politically biased as it is possible to be! (To be fair, the DM showed a few signs of softening its usually very hard-line approach somewhat in the last year or so, only to quickly revert to its rather notorious former self with the return of its longstanding chief agitator, Mr PD.) Maybe it's just me but I much prefer to read publications which do not lean strongly in either a right wing or a left wing direction. Most importantly as far as I am concerned, I simply cannot ever, and I mean ever, forgive the DM for its clear admiration of and support for the apartheid government in South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s!

I find the opposite. The trouble is there's no truly unbiased media, certainly not the BBC, so getting different slants on stories from media with different biases I think gets you a more balanced overview of issues. That is, after all, how law courts work, you get biased accounts from two barristers, one arguing that the evidence shows guilt and the other innocence. That I think is better than relying on any one to be impartial, because they invariably aren't particulary when it comes to contentious political issues.

cricidmuslibale

zagfles said:

cricidmuslibale said:

masonic said:

zagfles said:

masonic said:

zagfles said:

Anyway, it was the "language" that was being complained about as if it's only used by inferior publications, not worthy of "respected investment platforms" . I keep thinking of Hyacinth Bucket

I can't speak to the contents of anyone else's mind, but I didn't read it like that. DM and DE have a reputation for sensationalism. Like the annual repeated winter warnings of an impending "arctic storm" that turns out to be a slight ground frost. In my view, the only print media that gets close to reporting accurately is the FT, because its target clientele are in the business of making expensive investment decisions and need to know the truth. You'll sometimes find economic news reported there that is unrecognisable when covered elsewhere.

The DE certainly has where it comes to weather, but then so are a lot of the media when they make out the latest heatwave, downpour or storm is a sign of worse to come. But on finance, DM personal finance stuff is usually pretty good compared to most papers, they have the likes of Steve Webb writing articles often quoted here. Not at the level of the FT for the more in depth stuff obviously, but for general personal finance as good as the Guardian, BBC, Telegraph etc and generally no more "sensationalist".

Agree the 'This Is Money' side of things beats most of the competition, and their weekly podcast is very measured and high quality, so credit where it is due.

'This is Money', the weekly podcast and respected, experienced contributors like Steve Webb (who is a rare example of someone whose ideas are genuinely liberal) I have to agree are all clearly worth listening to or reading. However, the huge and very bleak irony for me at least is that all this genuinely useful and essentially impartial information is delivered alongside a newspaper which tends to be about as blatantly politically biased as it is possible to be! (To be fair, the DM showed a few signs of softening its usually very hard-line approach somewhat in the last year or so, only to quickly revert to its rather notorious former self with the return of its longstanding chief agitator, Mr PD.) Maybe it's just me but I much prefer to read publications which do not lean strongly in either a right wing or a left wing direction. Most importantly as far as I am concerned, I simply cannot ever, and I mean ever, forgive the DM for its clear admiration of and support for the apartheid government in South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s!

I find the opposite. The trouble is there's no truly unbiased media, certainly not the BBC, so getting different slants on stories from media with different biases I think gets you a more balanced overview of issues. That is, after all, how law courts work, you get biased accounts from two barristers, one arguing that the evidence shows guilt and the other innocence. That I think is better than relying on any one to be impartial, because they invariably aren't particulary when it comes to contentious political issues.

I fully agree with you on one point, that is when you mention the BBC. The BBC of the late 20th century had a least a modicum of originality, balance and independence of thought whilst the present BBC appears to be completely unwilling to discuss anything in depth that might lead to original, non-establishment, non-trendy and non-woke conclusions. This was especially evident unfortunately when the COVID pandemic was the dominant issue, and the same aversion to in-depth, balanced discussion even extends to the BBC’s coverage of important financial issues at times, sadly. I find Sky News to be a little but not a great deal better and GB News simply tries too hard to appear to be everything the BBC isn’t; yes GB News has an element of being ‘different’, ‘quasi original’ but only ever within the part of the political spectrum that ranges from soft right to hard right.

Swiftly returning to the main topic of this thread, my own view is that with the present generous £20k annual ISA allowance plus up to £50k permitted in tax free Premium Bonds, plus the Personal Savings Allowance of either £1k in savings interest for basic rate taxpayers or £500 for higher rate taxpayers taxed at 0%, British savers are a whole lot less compromised by tax than they were prior to 2016, for example! Savers in other countries are usually taxed a lot more than we are so perhaps we should be quietly grateful for that and not make too much fuss about a little extra tax when our interest rates are higher!

zagfles

cricidmuslibale said:

zagfles said:

cricidmuslibale said:

masonic said:

zagfles said:

masonic said:

zagfles said:

Anyway, it was the "language" that was being complained about as if it's only used by inferior publications, not worthy of "respected investment platforms" . I keep thinking of Hyacinth Bucket

I can't speak to the contents of anyone else's mind, but I didn't read it like that. DM and DE have a reputation for sensationalism. Like the annual repeated winter warnings of an impending "arctic storm" that turns out to be a slight ground frost. In my view, the only print media that gets close to reporting accurately is the FT, because its target clientele are in the business of making expensive investment decisions and need to know the truth. You'll sometimes find economic news reported there that is unrecognisable when covered elsewhere.

The DE certainly has where it comes to weather, but then so are a lot of the media when they make out the latest heatwave, downpour or storm is a sign of worse to come. But on finance, DM personal finance stuff is usually pretty good compared to most papers, they have the likes of Steve Webb writing articles often quoted here. Not at the level of the FT for the more in depth stuff obviously, but for general personal finance as good as the Guardian, BBC, Telegraph etc and generally no more "sensationalist".

Agree the 'This Is Money' side of things beats most of the competition, and their weekly podcast is very measured and high quality, so credit where it is due.

'This is Money', the weekly podcast and respected, experienced contributors like Steve Webb (who is a rare example of someone whose ideas are genuinely liberal) I have to agree are all clearly worth listening to or reading. However, the huge and very bleak irony for me at least is that all this genuinely useful and essentially impartial information is delivered alongside a newspaper which tends to be about as blatantly politically biased as it is possible to be! (To be fair, the DM showed a few signs of softening its usually very hard-line approach somewhat in the last year or so, only to quickly revert to its rather notorious former self with the return of its longstanding chief agitator, Mr PD.) Maybe it's just me but I much prefer to read publications which do not lean strongly in either a right wing or a left wing direction. Most importantly as far as I am concerned, I simply cannot ever, and I mean ever, forgive the DM for its clear admiration of and support for the apartheid government in South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s!

I find the opposite. The trouble is there's no truly unbiased media, certainly not the BBC, so getting different slants on stories from media with different biases I think gets you a more balanced overview of issues. That is, after all, how law courts work, you get biased accounts from two barristers, one arguing that the evidence shows guilt and the other innocence. That I think is better than relying on any one to be impartial, because they invariably aren't particulary when it comes to contentious political issues.

I fully agree with you on one point, that is when you mention the BBC. The BBC of the late 20th century had a least a modicum of originality, balance and independence of thought whilst the present BBC appears to be completely unwilling to discuss anything in depth that might lead to original, non-establishment, non-trendy and non-woke conclusions. This was especially evident unfortunately when the COVID pandemic was the dominant issue, and the same aversion to in-depth, balanced discussion even extends to the BBC’s coverage of important financial issues at times, unfortunately. I find Sky News to be a little but not a great deal better and GB News simply tries too hard to appear to be everything the BBC isn’t; yes GB News has an element of being ‘different’, ‘quasi original’ but only ever within the part of the political spectrum that ranges from soft right to hard right.

Swiftly returning to the main topic of this thread, my own view is that with the present generous £20k annual ISA allowance plus up to £50k permitted in tax free Premium Bonds, plus the Personal Savings Allowance of either £1k in savings interest for basic rate taxpayers or £500 for higher rate taxpayers taxed at 0%, British savers are a whole lot less compromised by tax than they were prior to 2016, for example! Savers in other countries are usually taxed a lot more than we are so perhaps we should be quietly grateful for that and not make too much fuss about a little extra tax when our interest rates are higher!

Agreed mostly although if you're getting 5% interest when inflation is 10%, your savings are losing value and you could be getting taxed on top! You'd have been better off with interest rates at 0% and inflation at 2%, and you'd pay no tax.

But the other issue isn't the tax itself but how it's deducted. In the UK most people expect tax to be taken care of by others, they expect their employer to deduct the right amount of income tax, they expect a shop, pub, utility company etc to charge the correct amount of VAT, excise duty etc, and they expected their bank to deduct tax on savings (as they did pre 2016). 

So it could be a "tax trap" in that people may get unexpected tax bills because they didn't realise tax wasn't all sorted at source as it is with nearly everything else they pay tax on.

Jeremy535897

eskbanker said:

badger09 said:

Back of an envelope guesstimate? Outside an ISA, £20k @ 5% = £1k. Widely available in fixed rate & within touching distance for easy access. 

That thought did briefly cross my mind, but AJB are apparently wanting "the chancellor to double the personal savings allowance to protect those with up to £20,000 in accounts", rather than stating that such people already have that level of protection without any doubling!

Given the increasing number becoming liable to higher rate tax due to the freezing of allowances and bands, £500 doubling to £1,000 would give that protection.