Reeves' ISA review

ivormonee

Yes that's good, or maybe also ITA (individual tax account), or ITFA (individual tax free account, and possibly easier to say out loud as a word than TFA). I don't know, we could probably come up with a whole load of options, probably some of them better than what we've got at the moment.

clairec666

ivormonee said:

Yes that's good, or maybe also ITA (individual tax account), or ITFA (individual tax free account, and possibly easier to say out loud as a word than TFA). I don't know, we could probably come up with a whole load of options, probably some of them better than what we've got at the moment.

I've never really thought about it before, but the name "Individual Savings Account" does not give any indication of its use. To someone unfamiliar with the world of savings accounts, they might not understand its difference from any other easy access account, which fit the description of both "individual" and "savings".

ivormonee

I think that's another area of common misconception - that some people see it as a type of account, whereas in practice it isn't. It's the underlying vehicle that's the account, such as an "easy access" account, a fixed term deposit account, an investment account (on a platform or app, for example). The "ISA" itself refers to the fact that the underlying, actual account itself is free of tax. I don't see the ISA as an account, but maybe it's just me, or I am in a small minority.

masonic

Oddly, we still refer to "pension savings" even though pensions are almost always composed of investment products.

We now have cash ISAs that contain investment products (QMMF), blurring the lines further.

ninaluna754

intalex said:

Couldn't just call it TFA (tax free account) with a Cash or S&S prefix?

Or perhaps a TEA (tax exempt account)?

boingy

Careful what you wish for. If they change the name it will give them a perfect excuse to change the rules.
As for the newspaper rumours, you can be sure that they originate from an unofficial govt source. It's fairly standard practice to test the waters with rumours before making it a policy. It gives them a chance to u-turn without u-turning if there is a massive backlash.

Rich2808

Rachel needs savings - given it won't be retrospective how much would this change save given it will only apply to interest future investments not existing ones. The tax loss from stocks and shares ISAs is of course higher long term anyway.

We see lots of kite flying - it will be endless until 26 November - but noway every change is going to happen.

And it would certainly not be a change which can happen immediately.

masonic

Rich2808 said:

And it would certainly not be a change which can happen immediately.

I think they'd struggle to meet an April 2026 start date, given all of the underlying complexities involving use of S&S ISAs. But hardly seems a priority in the hierarchy of unwelcome changes that could fill the hole.

Albermarle

boingy said:

Careful what you wish for. If they change the name it will give them a perfect excuse to change the rules.
As for the newspaper rumours, you can be sure that they originate from an unofficial govt source. It's fairly standard practice to test the waters with rumours before making it a policy. It gives them a chance to u-turn without u-turning if there is a massive backlash.

On the other hand some of the newspapers are very anti the Govt, and always present these rumours in a very dramatic and sensationalist way. A negative reaction by most of the readers is guaranteed, so probably not a very effective way of flying a kite.
I suppose if the rumour gets stronger and finds its way into the FT or BBC/ITV , then they might more of a useful reaction.

2010

The Mail for example has had ISA limit cuts as down to £4/£10/£12 thousand, so far.