Reeves' ISA review

Sea_Shell

MeteredOut said:

Sea_Shell said:

MeteredOut said:

Sea_Shell said:

If a lower cash ISA limit came in, I'm guessing that would stop me using T212 in the way I do.

ie, funding via the cash element (debit card), then moving the funds, internally, into the QMMF side.

Rather than funding the Trading account directly.

What's the benefit in doing it that way?

IIRC, the available pay in methods differ between the cash account and the trading account.

I found using a debit card to pay in was easiest.

I can't remember the other ways....goes off to look...

It'll have to wait until I'm on the laptop, as I don't use their app, just desktop.

The standard way is to fund via a linked bank account. How do you even fund it with your debit card?

Desktop site.  Cash ISA.   Deposit via debit card.

It links though to Lloyds, where it asks you to log on and authorise the payment.

MACKEM99

Alpine_Star said:

This story hasn't gone away, at least for the FT.

The key word in the stocks and shares 83k part is "could".

clairec666

Kim_13 said:

Ruling out cutting the overall £20,000 limit was a silly thing to do, and cutting it anyway would be no big deal - it wasn’t a manifesto commitment to my knowledge. A £20,000 ISA allowance against a £12,570 personal allowance is madness and cutting it would be better than restricting personal choice - and raise more revenue in the process.

If you're putting £20000 into an ISA each year then you're hardly struggling for money, yet by keeping the personal allowance frozen those at the lower end of the pay scale are losing a higher proportion of their income to tax. If Labour stuck to their original ethos, they would be slashing that ISA limit and raising the personal allowance in order to help out lower paid workers. There would be grumbles, but they'd soon go away. It's not as if they're raiding our existing ISAs and taxing us on their contents, they would just be limiting how much we put in. £5000 seems reasonable in my opinion.

ColdIron

clairec666 said:

Kim_13 said:

Ruling out cutting the overall £20,000 limit was a silly thing to do, and cutting it anyway would be no big deal - it wasn’t a manifesto commitment to my knowledge. A £20,000 ISA allowance against a £12,570 personal allowance is madness and cutting it would be better than restricting personal choice - and raise more revenue in the process.

It's not as if they're raiding our existing ISAs and taxing us on their contents, they would just be limiting how much we put in. £5000 seems reasonable in my opinion.

But it's not as if they are raising the personal allowance is it? The ISA move would disadvantage the 'wealthy' and maintaining the freeze disadvantages everybody. It's hard to spot who the winners are with this move except the Treasury

masonic

I'd argue the ISA move would not disadvantage the 'wealthy' in the main, because it seems to be targeted only at cash ISAs. The 'wealthy' tend to be more likely to hold a S&S ISA and probably financially literate enough to be aware of investments that could serve as a cash proxy within it.

ColdIron

Agreed, it won't affect me for that reason. But I wonder about intergenerational friction. The young would claim that they no longer get the breaks that their elders did. And they'd be right

jak22

It's removal of choice that's concerning, even it can be a difficult concept for some that what's right for one might not be the best for others. If S&S was clearly such a great choice for everyone then cash ISAs wouldn't be at all popular already. It's tricky to compare ISA allowance and income tax allowances. A contribution to an ISA may well be coming from taxed income, whereas the tax no longer due on the interest on that sum is only around 4% of that already paid.

Shylock_249

ColdIron said:

clairec666 said:

Kim_13 said:

Ruling out cutting the overall £20,000 limit was a silly thing to do, and cutting it anyway would be no big deal - it wasn’t a manifesto commitment to my knowledge. A £20,000 ISA allowance against a £12,570 personal allowance is madness and cutting it would be better than restricting personal choice - and raise more revenue in the process.

It's not as if they're raiding our existing ISAs and taxing us on their contents, they would just be limiting how much we put in. £5000 seems reasonable in my opinion.

But it's not as if they are raising the personal allowance is it? The ISA move would disadvantage the 'wealthy' and maintaining the freeze disadvantages everybody. It's hard to spot who the winners are with this move except the Treasury

I’d love to know what defines a “wealthy” person.

I’ve often found, where envy and greed are concerned, one person would define some one as being wealthy if they have a fiver more than themselves.

Swipe

Shylock_249 said:

ColdIron said:

clairec666 said:

Kim_13 said:

Ruling out cutting the overall £20,000 limit was a silly thing to do, and cutting it anyway would be no big deal - it wasn’t a manifesto commitment to my knowledge. A £20,000 ISA allowance against a £12,570 personal allowance is madness and cutting it would be better than restricting personal choice - and raise more revenue in the process.

It's not as if they're raiding our existing ISAs and taxing us on their contents, they would just be limiting how much we put in. £5000 seems reasonable in my opinion.

But it's not as if they are raising the personal allowance is it? The ISA move would disadvantage the 'wealthy' and maintaining the freeze disadvantages everybody. It's hard to spot who the winners are with this move except the Treasury

I’d love to know what defines a “wealthy” person.

I’ve often found, where envy and greed are concerned, one person would define some one as being wealthy if they have a fiver more than themselves.

According to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and corroborated by the National Audit Office (NAO), a wealthy individual is defined as someone who:

Earns more than £200,000 per year, or

Possesses assets worth more than £2 million,

In any of the past three tax years.

Sea_Shell

Swipe said:

Shylock_249 said:

ColdIron said:

clairec666 said:

Kim_13 said:

Ruling out cutting the overall £20,000 limit was a silly thing to do, and cutting it anyway would be no big deal - it wasn’t a manifesto commitment to my knowledge. A £20,000 ISA allowance against a £12,570 personal allowance is madness and cutting it would be better than restricting personal choice - and raise more revenue in the process.

It's not as if they're raiding our existing ISAs and taxing us on their contents, they would just be limiting how much we put in. £5000 seems reasonable in my opinion.

But it's not as if they are raising the personal allowance is it? The ISA move would disadvantage the 'wealthy' and maintaining the freeze disadvantages everybody. It's hard to spot who the winners are with this move except the Treasury

I’d love to know what defines a “wealthy” person.

I’ve often found, where envy and greed are concerned, one person would define some one as being wealthy if they have a fiver more than themselves.

According to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and corroborated by the National Audit Office (NAO), a wealthy individual is defined as someone who:

Earns more than £200,000 per year, or

Possesses assets worth more than £2 million,

In any of the past three tax years.

Phew!!

I can expect no impact then? 🤔😇😉🤑