Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
Page 2
    • ColdIron
    • By ColdIron 20th Mar 14, 6:32 AM
    • 5,321 Posts
    • 7,290 Thanks
    ColdIron
    Anyway, given that you are both so sure you are being conned, I would be grateful if you could write to your respective MP's requesting that you pay more tax
    Originally posted by Jonbvn
    Hear hear, there's no pleasing some people, I'm pretty chuffed with this 'con'
    • gadgetmind
    • By gadgetmind 20th Mar 14, 7:18 AM
    • 10,933 Posts
    • 8,916 Thanks
    gadgetmind
    I'm also pleased to see the first positive news regards pensions and ISAs that we've had for quite a few years.

    Even putting the 120%->150% GAD boost into our retirement spreadsheet makes things look shiny. If I can also later have my wife using her full personal allowance from 55+ to draw heavily on her pension before SP kicks in, then things look even better.
    I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.

    Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.
    • chucknorris
    • By chucknorris 20th Mar 14, 7:32 AM
    • 10,086 Posts
    • 14,946 Thanks
    chucknorris
    Typical tory con!! Who will derive any benefit from this? Given the paltry rates on cash isa's at the moment, only those paying 40% tax. Tory friends!!!
    Originally posted by mikemoate
    If cash ISA rates are too low for you, haven't you considered a SS ISA? You will receive dividend income of around 2.7 to 3.2% plus the opportunity for capital growth (especially when you consider that you sell them when you want to, i.e. when there is capital growth).


    Now that there is full flexibility for transfers between the two (SS and cash) I will be investing 100% in the SS version while interest rates are so low.


    EDIT: The news on pensions/annuities was even better IMO.
    Last edited by chucknorris; 20-03-2014 at 7:36 AM.
    Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird
    The only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake
    Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".
    I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop
    • Archi Bald
    • By Archi Bald 20th Mar 14, 8:43 AM
    • 9,376 Posts
    • 7,432 Thanks
    Archi Bald
    Typical tory con!! Who will derive any benefit from this? Given the paltry rates on cash isa's at the moment, only those paying 40% tax. Tory friends!!!
    Originally posted by mikemoate
    Can you explain where exactly the con is in yesterday's budget in general, and in the NISA announcement in particular? Not even Ed Balls called it a con, even though he is desperately trying to pick holes into it, as is his job as the shadow chancellor.
    • nearlyrich
    • By nearlyrich 20th Mar 14, 9:06 AM
    • 13,335 Posts
    • 16,542 Thanks
    nearlyrich
    You've got to be pretty loaded as a couple to pay in 30k per year when the average wage is below that. I'd think anyone who can save that kind of money must be earning 6 figures so the benefit to the average person is pretty small and the high earners will do best.
    Originally posted by jimjames

    I can save a good percentage of my take home pay and 15k a year is possible as currently I save into a S & S ISA and a couple of other none ISA regular savings products. The good news for me is that I can move the previously saved money to cash if the stocks get volatile whilst keeping them under a tax efficient wrapper. This makes me feel a lot more secure.


    I don't dispute that I would be classed as a high earner now but when I was in my 30s with 2 dependent children and a mortgage I still prioritised saving over spending frivolously whilst having a decent standard of living. Hence I have a half decent ISA pot which will help to fund the gap between my planned retirement and the state's date of paying my hard earned pension..at 67 rather then 60 when I started paying in.

    The changes in private pension arrangements are also of benefit to me as I was wary of buying an annuity but would like to spend more of my pot whilst young enough to enjoy it even if it is taxable.
    Last edited by nearlyrich; 20-03-2014 at 9:18 AM.
    Free impartial debt advice from: National Debtline or Stepchange[/CENTER]
    • ColdIron
    • By ColdIron 20th Mar 14, 10:04 AM
    • 5,321 Posts
    • 7,290 Thanks
    ColdIron
    You've got to be pretty loaded as a couple to pay in 30k per year when the average wage is below that. I'd think anyone who can save that kind of money must be earning 6 figures so the benefit to the average person is pretty small and the high earners will do best.
    Originally posted by jimjames
    Not all ISA contributions come from wages. There are many people with substantial cash savings or investments that they have built up over the years who are moving them to the shelter of an ISA. Many of these people may even be retired or on a low income
    • chucknorris
    • By chucknorris 20th Mar 14, 10:35 AM
    • 10,086 Posts
    • 14,946 Thanks
    chucknorris
    You've got to be pretty loaded as a couple to pay in 30k per year when the average wage is below that. I'd think anyone who can save that kind of money must be earning 6 figures so the benefit to the average person is pretty small and the high earners will do best.
    Originally posted by jimjames

    We both will be saving/investing the full 30k, previously I used to use my wife's SS ISA allowance as she wasn't keen, but now because they are flexible and savings rates are so low she is going to invest all her 15k in SS ISA's (so am I). I also invest up to the max pension allowance for tax relief (50k this year but reduces to 40k next year). Our employment earnings are only 41k and 51k although we do have other income.
    Last edited by chucknorris; 20-03-2014 at 10:39 AM.
    Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one bird
    The only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistake
    Chuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".
    I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop
    • bryanb
    • By bryanb 20th Mar 14, 11:03 AM
    • 4,804 Posts
    • 3,511 Thanks
    bryanb
    You've got to be pretty loaded as a couple to pay in 30k per year
    Originally posted by jimjames
    Maybe, but some of us are on pensions with largish sums saved over the years,and gradually ISAing them at about 5k+ p.a.
    It will be good to transfer them to NISA's at 15k p.a. to avoid paying tax on the interest.
    Different people = Different circumstances.
    This is an open forum, anyone can post and I just did !
    • Scarpacci
    • By Scarpacci 20th Mar 14, 12:02 PM
    • 987 Posts
    • 2,473 Thanks
    Scarpacci
    Typical tory con!! Who will derive any benefit from this? Given the paltry rates on cash isa's at the moment, only those paying 40% tax. Tory friends!!!
    Originally posted by mikemoate
    Err, every tax payer could benefit from shielding their savings from tax. The 20% tax payers will still benefit by, well, 20%! Losing 20% might be better than losing 40%, but it's a damn sight worse than losing 0% - so ISAs are as much for basic rate payers. Whether people are earning 1%, 3% or 5% - getting to keep 100% of the interest is obviously better than keeping 60% or 80% of it. You could argue it's even more important in times like this not to have the taxman taking his cut.

    I also can't understand the attitude that cash savings are inherently worse right now because of the interest rates. Cash will always be a loser. It would be no better to have 3% interest rates and inflation at 4%, than it is to have 1% interest rates and 2% inflation. In the long term cash will always lose out, all the more so if the taxman's taking a cut. Still, people generally need to build up some cash savings - so it's generally for the better that they can build this away from the taxman's prying hand.
    This is everybody's fault but mine.
    • home_alone
    • By home_alone 20th Mar 14, 1:48 PM
    • 750 Posts
    • 276 Thanks
    home_alone
    Not all ISA contributions come from wages. There are many people with substantial cash savings or investments that they have built up over the years who are moving them to the shelter of an ISA. Many of these people may even be retired or on a low income
    Originally posted by ColdIron
    Yes I and my wife are retired and have savings that could give us the max yearly isa for some years to come, question is I imagine that the protected upper limit for savings still applies 85000 with one provider. Yes its there with martins guide to cash isas never thought I would worry about that with isas but with the new limit you could get there quite quickly.
    Last edited by home_alone; 20-03-2014 at 1:58 PM.
    • Archi Bald
    • By Archi Bald 20th Mar 14, 2:06 PM
    • 9,376 Posts
    • 7,432 Thanks
    Archi Bald
    question is I imagine that the protected upper limit for savings still applies 85000 with one provider.
    Originally posted by home_alone
    The 85K FSCS limit per person per financial institution for savings is entirely unaffected by yesterday's budget. So is the FSCS limit for investments (50K) even though the nature of it is entirely different to the cash protection one.

    You are not forced to keep all your ISAs with one provider, nor are you forced to keep all your cash in a single cash ISA, or all your investments in a single S&S ISA.
    • jimjames
    • By jimjames 20th Mar 14, 4:23 PM
    • 13,241 Posts
    • 12,302 Thanks
    jimjames
    Not all ISA contributions come from wages. There are many people with substantial cash savings or investments that they have built up over the years who are moving them to the shelter of an ISA. Many of these people may even be retired or on a low income
    Originally posted by ColdIron
    That's true if you already have the pot and move it in.

    But I still think for the average person the increase is of limited appeal when they can't even save the current cash ISA limit.

    I'm on a decent salary and still struggle to fill a S&S ISA each year.
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
    • kidmugsy
    • By kidmugsy 20th Mar 14, 7:21 PM
    • 12,480 Posts
    • 8,852 Thanks
    kidmugsy
    That's true if you already have the pot and move it in.

    But I still think for the average person the increase is of limited appeal when they can't even save the current cash ISA limit.

    I'm on a decent salary and still struggle to fill a S&S ISA each year.
    Originally posted by jimjames
    It's welcome for a couple who wish to move ISA savings and nvestments from one to the other.
    • ceredigion
    • By ceredigion 20th Mar 14, 7:35 PM
    • 3,350 Posts
    • 4,755 Thanks
    ceredigion
    Err, every tax payer could benefit from shielding their savings from tax. The 20% tax payers will still benefit by, well, 20%! Losing 20% might be better than losing 40%, but it's a damn sight worse than losing 0% - so ISAs are as much for basic rate payers. Whether people are earning 1%, 3% or 5% - getting to keep 100% of the interest is obviously better than keeping 60% or 80% of it. You could argue it's even more important in times like this not to have the taxman taking his cut.

    I also can't understand the attitude that cash savings are inherently worse right now because of the interest rates. Cash will always be a loser. It would be no better to have 3% interest rates and inflation at 4%, than it is to have 1% interest rates and 2% inflation. In the long term cash will always lose out, all the more so if the taxman's taking a cut. Still, people generally need to build up some cash savings - so it's generally for the better that they can build this away from the taxman's prying hand.
    Originally posted by Scarpacci


    think what mikemoate was getting at , is most basic rate tax payers are better off paying the tax on 3% than they are with their money tax free in an isa wrapper. Personally , think it has more to do with the banks setting the rates at a point where theres nothing in it either way which means they benefit than the isa money more than the saver.
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 20th Mar 14, 7:41 PM
    • 14,290 Posts
    • 12,478 Thanks
    zagfles
    That's true if you already have the pot and move it in.

    But I still think for the average person the increase is of limited appeal when they can't even save the current cash ISA limit.

    I'm on a decent salary and still struggle to fill a S&S ISA each year.
    Originally posted by jimjames
    For people who aren't going to fill it they can use it for short term savings eg for holidays, Christmas etc.
    • ceredigion
    • By ceredigion 20th Mar 14, 7:57 PM
    • 3,350 Posts
    • 4,755 Thanks
    ceredigion
    For people who aren't going to fill it they can use it for short term savings eg for holidays, Christmas etc.
    Originally posted by zagfles


    yeah, but why would you when you can get 3,4,5% instant access pay the tax and still be better off
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 20th Mar 14, 8:06 PM
    • 14,290 Posts
    • 12,478 Thanks
    zagfles
    yeah, but why would you when you can get 3,4,5% instant access pay the tax and still be better off
    Originally posted by ceredigion
    They usually have quite low limits for interest. I suppose you could open a few of them, but I wonder how long this trend of high interest/low limits on current accounts will last? Banks seem to be having a price war to get peoples' current accounts but I can't see them paying interest at way above base rates for long.

    The other thing for people on lower incomes is that taxable interest counts as income for tax credits but ISA interest doesn't.
    Last edited by zagfles; 20-03-2014 at 8:09 PM.
    • mazybel
    • By mazybel 20th Mar 14, 9:45 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    mazybel
    Am confused now .?? I earn 22000 approx. have 5350 ISA with Santander and 5750 with Coventry. Should i just put it in saving a/c instead ??
    • Scarpacci
    • By Scarpacci 21st Mar 14, 12:16 AM
    • 987 Posts
    • 2,473 Thanks
    Scarpacci
    think what mikemoate was getting at , is most basic rate tax payers are better off paying the tax on 3% than they are with their money tax free in an isa wrapper. Personally , think it has more to do with the banks setting the rates at a point where theres nothing in it either way which means they benefit than the isa money more than the saver.
    Originally posted by ceredigion
    It's a reasonable point but I don't see it as reason to attack ISAs, or the increase in the allowance, as something that only benefits the rich, as the poster did. The situation with current accounts is unusual and who knows how long it will last. Surprisingly, there are even current accounts out where which would beat instant access ISAs for higher rate tax payers, too, so I still don't think ISAs can be portrayed as something for the rich. Still there is a cumulative benefit to shielding money away from tax which, in the years ahead, will benefit anybody able to save in an ISA. Current accounts are good for now, but I think cash will usually be better placed in an ISA sooner or later.
    This is everybody's fault but mine.
    • opaque
    • By opaque 21st Mar 14, 12:51 PM
    • 179 Posts
    • 114 Thanks
    opaque
    The 85K FSCS limit per person per financial institution for savings is entirely unaffected by yesterday's budget. So is the FSCS limit for investments (50K) even though the nature of it is entirely different to the cash protection one.

    You are not forced to keep all your ISAs with one provider, nor are you forced to keep all your cash in a single cash ISA, or all your investments in a single S&S ISA.
    Originally posted by Archi Bald
    No but the point is that in the new tax year under the new scheme you could move 15,000 of cash to another provider/license in one go which would have taken you 3 years before
    Good way of shifting money around. More % back would of course be great but in terms of 'protecting' your money this is a great deal.
    If you have that sort of money of course!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

82Posts Today

1,324Users online

Martin's Twitter