Reeves' ISA review

Baldeagle095

Personally I am in favour of abolishing ISAs and the tax advantages they have over other income streams.

Already you have a personal allowance, a £5,000 starting rate for savings,and a personal savings allowance worth up to £1,000. 

The use of ISAs tends to be for the already wealthy. They seem to be shouting loudest!

Taxes need to be raised for the welfare U-turn, and indeed the winter fuel allowance for pensioners.

Those who supports ISAs should be asked how they would fund those benefits.

clairec666

Baldeagle095 said:

Personally I am in favour of abolishing ISAs and the tax advantages they have over other income streams.

Already you have a personal allowance, a £5,000 starting rate for savings,and a personal savings allowance worth up to £1,000. 

The use of ISAs tends to be for the already wealthy. They seem to be shouting loudest!

Taxes need to be raised for the welfare U-turn, and indeed the winter fuel allowance for pensioners.

Those who supports ISAs should be asked how they would fund those benefits.

While I don't agree with completely abolishing ISAs completely, I agree up to a point - anyone who is putting away a few thousand a year into an ISA is doing OK financially, and I don't think the limit should ever have got as high as £20000. People have built up massive amounts in ISAs by putting away the full amount each year. Bring it back down to £5000 per year. Even though this wouldn't benefit me personally.

Albermarle

clairec666 said:

Baldeagle095 said:

Personally I am in favour of abolishing ISAs and the tax advantages they have over other income streams.

Already you have a personal allowance, a £5,000 starting rate for savings,and a personal savings allowance worth up to £1,000. 

The use of ISAs tends to be for the already wealthy. They seem to be shouting loudest!

Taxes need to be raised for the welfare U-turn, and indeed the winter fuel allowance for pensioners.

Those who supports ISAs should be asked how they would fund those benefits.

While I don't agree with completely abolishing ISAs completely, I agree up to a point - anyone who is putting away a few thousand a year into an ISA is doing OK financially, and I don't think the limit should ever have got as high as £20000. People have built up massive amounts in ISAs by putting away the full amount each year. Bring it back down to £5000 per year. Even though this wouldn't benefit me personally.

Also I have the impression that many of those ranting and raving about it in  the comments section of various media outlets, are generally not the better off ones who would actually be affected . Same as with IHT.

booneruk

Albermarle said:

Also I have the impression that many of those ranting and raving about it in  the comments section of various media outlets, are generally not the better off ones who would actually be affected . Same as with IHT.

I also wager there will be plenty whinging who have maxed contributions for years and are sat on 200k+ cash  piles which will (if we are to believe the rumours) remain tax free.

However, shock and outrage since they can only add 5k a year after the budget and thus might need to pay a bit of tax on interest on amounts above that 5k that they can't squirrel away into premium bonds or low coupon gilts.

The_Green_Hornet

booneruk said:

Albermarle said:

Also I have the impression that many of those ranting and raving about it in  the comments section of various media outlets, are generally not the better off ones who would actually be affected . Same as with IHT.

I also wager there will be plenty whinging who have maxed contributions for years and are sat on 200k+ cash  piles which will (if we are to believe the rumours) remain tax free.

However, shock and outrage since they can only add 5k a year after the budget and thus might need to pay a bit of tax on interest on amounts above that 5k that they can't squirrel away into premium bonds or low coupon gilts.

I don't think many people go to their grave wishing they had paid more tax.

booneruk

The_Green_Hornet said:

I don't think many people go to their grave wishing they had paid more tax.

There's also no point going to the grave and being the richest corpse. Spend the money!

The_Green_Hornet

booneruk said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

I don't think many people go to their grave wishing they had paid more tax.

There's also no point going to the grave and being the richest corpse. Spend the money!

That only really works if you know that date you are going to die.

boingy

The_Green_Hornet said:

booneruk said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

I don't think many people go to their grave wishing they had paid more tax.

There's also no point going to the grave and being the richest corpse. Spend the money!

That only really works if you know that date you are going to die.

That would be really handy. Financial planning would be so much easier!

Alpine_Star

From today's FT.

x44

All this tripe about S&S ISA's and how its "investing" in industry really is a load of twaddle.

When you buy a share either directly or via a pooled fund such as a unit trust/OEIC the money you pay does not go anywhere near the company whose share you buy.

It goes to the person who is selling the shares to you!

All you are doing is in effect buying a right to have a dividend income stream given to you by the company.

The company just regards this endless buying and selling of its shares as a total pain and employs a share registrar to administer it for them.

There is no way this could possibly be described as investing in industry.

The only way a company might actually see any money from its "investors" is if it puts out a rights issue of new shares.  Not surprisingly these are not very popular with shareholders as it means shareholders actually have to give the company money (shock horror).