Cash ISAs capped at 12,000 (a year)

Middle_of_the_Road

DRS1 said:

Eldi_Dos said:

Wish I had listened better when I was younger.

Many thanks.

But back in 1900 there wasn't an ISA to invest through.

The correct date from that factoid was 1990, as mentioned up thread.

eskbanker

Middle_of_the_Road said:

DRS1 said:

Eldi_Dos said:

Wish I had listened better when I was younger.

Many thanks.

But back in 1900 there wasn't an ISA to invest through.

The correct date from that factoid was 1990, as mentioned up thread.

Depends what you mean by 'correct' - the poster originally said 1900, then 'corrected' it to 1990, but the actual quote was 1999, as posted earlier from the transcript!

Middle_of_the_Road

The present difficulties around understanding ISA rules will seem rudimentary compared to the complicated mess these changes will bring about. Not to mention the costs of their implementation.

Albermarle

Pat38493 said:

It’s worth noting that the UK is almost the only country on the world that offers this kind of tax break for risk free return on bank savings accounts, so the UK was always a bit of an outlier here.

I think a few other countries have some kind of similar tax break, but not to the same extent as the UK, and many have nothing at all.

eskbanker

Middle_of_the_Road said:

The present difficulties around understanding ISA rules will seem rudimentary compared to the complicated mess these changes will bring about.

Of course there is an argument that complex rules hinder take-up, which in turn can lead to increased tax revenues - job done!

Middle_of_the_Road said:

Not to mention the costs of their implementation.

Primarily borne by the financial institutions of course, but obviously there's an argument that significant costs would be passed on to punters via lower rates, etc.

Middle_of_the_Road

eskbanker said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

The present difficulties around understanding ISA rules will seem rudimentary compared to the complicated mess these changes will bring about.

Of course there is an argument that complex rules hinder take-up, which in turn can lead to increased tax revenues - job done!
I'd not looked at that interpretation, although I doubt they'd be that canny to have considered it.

Middle_of_the_Road said:

Not to mention the costs of their implementation.

Primarily borne by the financial institutions of course, but obviously there's an argument that significant costs would be passed on to punters via lower rates, etc.
That is exactly inline with my concerns.

Comments in bold ^

Rheumatoid

DRS1 said:

Eldi_Dos said:

Wish I had listened better when I was younger.

Many thanks.

But back in 1900 there wasn't an ISA to invest through.

? TESSA or something like that

eskbanker

Rheumatoid said:

DRS1 said:

Eldi_Dos said:

Wish I had listened better when I was younger.

Many thanks.

But back in 1900 there wasn't an ISA to invest through.

? TESSA or something like that

More likely to have been VICTORIA in 1900

london21

I started with cash ISA and moved to index funds. Think some people just do not like risk.

Middle_of_the_Road

eskbanker said:

Rheumatoid said:

DRS1 said:

Eldi_Dos said:

Wish I had listened better when I was younger.

Many thanks.

But back in 1900 there wasn't an ISA to invest through.

? TESSA or something like that

More likely to have been VICTORIA in 1900

We are not amused 🙄