Martin Lewis: Cash ISA limit could be cut – this is 'p*ss people off economics'

wornoutandhot

A very simple and common sense way of looking at risk is by thinking how long you might have left to live and do you have the time left to recover from losses...Can you afford to invest in possibly a very volatile market due to the world-wide threats of war etc.  I don't have the time!!

Cobbler_tone

artyboy said:

mebu60 said:

People can still invest in premium bonds, use their savings allowances and go into short dated gilts if they need to - or even (shock, horror) pay a slither of tax on their interest in everyday savings accounts. No one's stopping them saving cash.

40% is not a 'slither'. 

And nor is 45%!

But sod it, tax the rich. It was always going to happen, whatever the protestations to the contrary.

Call me Robin Hood but it is preferable to taxing the 'poor' more. TBF the 'rich' generally already pay more tax and of course it depends on the definitions of  'rich' and 'poor'. 
Someone is always going to be unhappy, whether they are moving into the 40%/45% bracket, or someone trying to keep their winter fuel allowance or benefits. 
I think it is currently a case of 'tax everyone!'

Hoenir

Cobbler_tone said:

artyboy said:

mebu60 said:

People can still invest in premium bonds, use their savings allowances and go into short dated gilts if they need to - or even (shock, horror) pay a slither of tax on their interest in everyday savings accounts. No one's stopping them saving cash.

40% is not a 'slither'. 

And nor is 45%!

But sod it, tax the rich. It was always going to happen, whatever the protestations to the contrary.

Call me Robin Hood but it is preferable to taxing the 'poor' more. TBF the 'rich' generally already pay more tax and of course it depends on the definitions of  'rich' and 'poor'. 
Someone is always going to be unhappy, whether they are moving into the 40%/45% bracket, or someone trying to keep their winter fuel allowance or benefits. 
I think it is currently a case of 'tax everyone!'

Take away all the artificial props and tax breaks that cost enormous amounts of money. Simplify the tax code. If people wish to work hard productively, let them keep more of what they earn.  

Cobbler_tone

Hoenir said:

Cobbler_tone said:

artyboy said:

mebu60 said:

People can still invest in premium bonds, use their savings allowances and go into short dated gilts if they need to - or even (shock, horror) pay a slither of tax on their interest in everyday savings accounts. No one's stopping them saving cash.

40% is not a 'slither'. 

And nor is 45%!

But sod it, tax the rich. It was always going to happen, whatever the protestations to the contrary.

Call me Robin Hood but it is preferable to taxing the 'poor' more. TBF the 'rich' generally already pay more tax and of course it depends on the definitions of  'rich' and 'poor'. 
Someone is always going to be unhappy, whether they are moving into the 40%/45% bracket, or someone trying to keep their winter fuel allowance or benefits. 
I think it is currently a case of 'tax everyone!'

Take away all the artificial props and tax breaks that cost enormous amounts of money. Simplify the tax code. If people wish to work hard productively, let them keep more of what they earn.  

I’m further left of that ‘let the rich get richer’ mentality. Someone earns more and they take home more today. I don’t like the mentality of ‘there’s no point earning more than x due to tax’, you still end up with more.
A lot of the people you allude to don’t actually work that hard. I’m surrounded by them.

Kim_13

Cobbler_tone said:

Hoenir said:

Cobbler_tone said:

artyboy said:

mebu60 said:

People can still invest in premium bonds, use their savings allowances and go into short dated gilts if they need to - or even (shock, horror) pay a slither of tax on their interest in everyday savings accounts. No one's stopping them saving cash.

40% is not a 'slither'. 

And nor is 45%!

But sod it, tax the rich. It was always going to happen, whatever the protestations to the contrary.

Call me Robin Hood but it is preferable to taxing the 'poor' more. TBF the 'rich' generally already pay more tax and of course it depends on the definitions of  'rich' and 'poor'. 
Someone is always going to be unhappy, whether they are moving into the 40%/45% bracket, or someone trying to keep their winter fuel allowance or benefits. 
I think it is currently a case of 'tax everyone!'

Take away all the artificial props and tax breaks that cost enormous amounts of money. Simplify the tax code. If people wish to work hard productively, let them keep more of what they earn.  

I’m further left of that ‘let the rich get richer’ mentality. Someone earns more and they take home more today. I don’t like the mentality of ‘there’s no point earning more than x due to tax’, you still end up with more.
A lot of the people you allude to don’t actually work that hard. I’m surrounded by them.

Once they have enough to live/retire on, each person will have their own take on whether working more is worth it, and what X is. When people don’t need to work, the size of the slice they end up with if they do so matters, so that they consider it worth their while to do that and bring in revenue for the government. I can’t imagine many still working if their effective tax rate was over 50%, unless they really love their jobs. Working more if you are not well off makes a far bigger difference to your life. Diminishing marginal returns.

ISAs might be unneeded to some but they beat having your tax code adjusted several times a year. A number of posters here would prefer to just pay the tax due rather than having code adjustments, collection of the amount due in a later tax year and inaccurate interest predictions applied to future years. 

subjecttocontract

When is the budget ?

ColdIron

October/November

dales1

[Deleted User] said:
As for the ISA issue, it's fairly simple -  simply merge all the cash/lifetime ISA limits into a single limit matching the FSCS cap (circa €100k per person) with anything above taxable in the normal way. 

Now let me guess - this tax increase you propose, well it wouldn't actually hit you personally, would it.

Tax increases are an upward ratchet, and so (if necessary at all) need to be more carefully thought through than this.

Increasing taxes which discourage people from saving seems bad policy to me.

Grumpy_chap

[Deleted User] said:

As for the ISA issue, it's fairly simple -  simply merge all the cash/lifetime ISA limits into a single limit matching the FSCS cap (circa €100k per person) with anything above taxable in the normal way. 

Well, it is not simple as such a cap would be an effective retrospective change.
There are people for whom the ISA-vehicle has been used as an alternative to pensions as a means to provide for retirement

InvesterJones

[Deleted User] said:

As for the ISA issue, it's fairly simple -  simply merge all the cash/lifetime ISA limits into a single limit matching the FSCS cap (circa €100k per person) with anything above taxable in the normal way. 

Do you mean a capital limit? How would you treat an existing stocks and shares ISA investment of £200k? Force a sale?