FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > £100k makes you rich
£100k makes you rich
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"The banks don't want you saving, they want you spending and borrowing so they can earn interest." The banks do want some people saving, as they can't lend money out to people if they don't have the reserves to cover it. | |||
| |||
"I guess it depends on the type of ISA but 100k is a lot, if you consider that person should also have emergency funds and be saving in a pension. It would be interesting to see the stats on the overall net wealth of someone with 100k in an ISA. I haven't seen the deatil, but whatever the cap, it should be a mount contributed, not current value. " I can understand the amount contributed reducing, it used to be 5 raising to 10 then 15k now £20k per year, but I think the report said only 1.2m have over 100k in an ISA. What was more apparent was a 'help to save' account designed for low incomes was not being used, so either people are broke, don't save or are not inclined to, but given ISA's are decades of long term accumulation and the whole point of them is for rainy day, retirement, emergency savings - why put people off at all. | |||
"I guess it depends on the type of ISA but 100k is a lot, if you consider that person should also have emergency funds and be saving in a pension. It would be interesting to see the stats on the overall net wealth of someone with 100k in an ISA. I haven't seen the deatil, but whatever the cap, it should be a mount contributed, not current value. I can understand the amount contributed reducing, it used to be 5 raising to 10 then 15k now £20k per year, but I think the report said only 1.2m have over 100k in an ISA. What was more apparent was a 'help to save' account designed for low incomes was not being used, so either people are broke, don't save or are not inclined to, but given ISA's are decades of long term accumulation and the whole point of them is for rainy day, retirement, emergency savings - why put people off at all." 1.2m feels about right. That's 3pc of adults. I'd suggest that the top 3pc of ppl are seen as being wealthy. Why would a cap put ppl off saving ? | |||
| |||
"I guess it depends on the type of ISA but 100k is a lot, if you consider that person should also have emergency funds and be saving in a pension. It would be interesting to see the stats on the overall net wealth of someone with 100k in an ISA. I haven't seen the deatil, but whatever the cap, it should be a mount contributed, not current value. I can understand the amount contributed reducing, it used to be 5 raising to 10 then 15k now £20k per year, but I think the report said only 1.2m have over 100k in an ISA. What was more apparent was a 'help to save' account designed for low incomes was not being used, so either people are broke, don't save or are not inclined to, but given ISA's are decades of long term accumulation and the whole point of them is for rainy day, retirement, emergency savings - why put people off at all.1.2m feels about right. That's 3pc of adults. I'd suggest that the top 3pc of ppl are seen as being wealthy. Why would a cap put ppl off saving ? " They aren't saving now - if they know they'll be getting taxed, what would be the point in saving, may as well buy a Rolex. | |||
"I guess it depends on the type of ISA but 100k is a lot, if you consider that person should also have emergency funds and be saving in a pension. It would be interesting to see the stats on the overall net wealth of someone with 100k in an ISA. I haven't seen the deatil, but whatever the cap, it should be a mount contributed, not current value. I can understand the amount contributed reducing, it used to be 5 raising to 10 then 15k now £20k per year, but I think the report said only 1.2m have over 100k in an ISA. What was more apparent was a 'help to save' account designed for low incomes was not being used, so either people are broke, don't save or are not inclined to, but given ISA's are decades of long term accumulation and the whole point of them is for rainy day, retirement, emergency savings - why put people off at all.1.2m feels about right. That's 3pc of adults. I'd suggest that the top 3pc of ppl are seen as being wealthy. Why would a cap put ppl off saving ? They aren't saving now - if they know they'll be getting taxed, what would be the point in saving, may as well buy a Rolex." I may have missed something. They'd only be taxed if they got to 100k right ? | |||
| |||
"I guess it depends on the type of ISA but 100k is a lot, if you consider that person should also have emergency funds and be saving in a pension. It would be interesting to see the stats on the overall net wealth of someone with 100k in an ISA. I haven't seen the deatil, but whatever the cap, it should be a mount contributed, not current value. I can understand the amount contributed reducing, it used to be 5 raising to 10 then 15k now £20k per year, but I think the report said only 1.2m have over 100k in an ISA. What was more apparent was a 'help to save' account designed for low incomes was not being used, so either people are broke, don't save or are not inclined to, but given ISA's are decades of long term accumulation and the whole point of them is for rainy day, retirement, emergency savings - why put people off at all.1.2m feels about right. That's 3pc of adults. I'd suggest that the top 3pc of ppl are seen as being wealthy. Why would a cap put ppl off saving ? They aren't saving now - if they know they'll be getting taxed, what would be the point in saving, may as well buy a Rolex.I may have missed something. They'd only be taxed if they got to 100k right ?" That is the idea put forward by the 'think tank'. I don't see 100k as being enough to sustain a decent standard of living in retirement. | |||
"I guess it depends on the type of ISA but 100k is a lot, if you consider that person should also have emergency funds and be saving in a pension. It would be interesting to see the stats on the overall net wealth of someone with 100k in an ISA. I haven't seen the deatil, but whatever the cap, it should be a mount contributed, not current value. I can understand the amount contributed reducing, it used to be 5 raising to 10 then 15k now £20k per year, but I think the report said only 1.2m have over 100k in an ISA. What was more apparent was a 'help to save' account designed for low incomes was not being used, so either people are broke, don't save or are not inclined to, but given ISA's are decades of long term accumulation and the whole point of them is for rainy day, retirement, emergency savings - why put people off at all.1.2m feels about right. That's 3pc of adults. I'd suggest that the top 3pc of ppl are seen as being wealthy. Why would a cap put ppl off saving ? They aren't saving now - if they know they'll be getting taxed, what would be the point in saving, may as well buy a Rolex.I may have missed something. They'd only be taxed if they got to 100k right ? That is the idea put forward by the 'think tank'. I don't see 100k as being enough to sustain a decent standard of living in retirement." nor do I. But pensions are better for that. Cap them is a shade of one million. | |||
"There's headlines from the Resolution Foundation that have bugged me recently as ideas usually turn into policy. The idea of capping and taxing ISA's beyond £100k as they view it as rich or a rich only activity. If there's a thought about taxing "rich" people for years, likely decades of saving, why aren't taxes increased on goods or services directly used by 'the rich' in the first instance. Added VAT on say Rolex, Patek Philippe, first class flights, private jets, luxury cars and clothes, caviar. At least everyone has the option to save, whereas very few have the option of a Cartier sunglasses or a Lamborghini. There seems a world of difference in saving for retirement or a rainy day and being income rich. Social care is £25k per yr right now, a new small electric car is £25k, used maybe £10k, so £100k is not going to stretch that far. If a cap is put on peoples ability to save, if anything it will act as a disincentive to save, neither 'the rich' or low incomes will bother, as they are now - either due to low rates, consumption habits, knowledge or forward planning. " Pensions are not included in this cap. There is no particular reason for capital growth or income made from savings should not be taxed as anything else, is there? Encouraging some level of savings tax free is sensible. £100k of investment can amount to significantly more in growth over many years. It's also a lot of money to save. Someone wealthy will hit this figure very quickly, just like income tax. Most people will take a lifetime to get to this. The wealthy will still save or spend as they wish. They will just have to pay tax. The majority will probably never make the £100k limit so it will not change their incentives or motivation. There is a case for an instrument equivalent to pensions that is used to pay for old age care though. | |||
"I guess it depends on the type of ISA but 100k is a lot, if you consider that person should also have emergency funds and be saving in a pension. It would be interesting to see the stats on the overall net wealth of someone with 100k in an ISA. I haven't seen the deatil, but whatever the cap, it should be a mount contributed, not current value. I can understand the amount contributed reducing, it used to be 5 raising to 10 then 15k now £20k per year, but I think the report said only 1.2m have over 100k in an ISA. What was more apparent was a 'help to save' account designed for low incomes was not being used, so either people are broke, don't save or are not inclined to, but given ISA's are decades of long term accumulation and the whole point of them is for rainy day, retirement, emergency savings - why put people off at all.1.2m feels about right. That's 3pc of adults. I'd suggest that the top 3pc of ppl are seen as being wealthy. Why would a cap put ppl off saving ? They aren't saving now - if they know they'll be getting taxed, what would be the point in saving, may as well buy a Rolex.I may have missed something. They'd only be taxed if they got to 100k right ? That is the idea put forward by the 'think tank'. I don't see 100k as being enough to sustain a decent standard of living in retirement.nor do I. But pensions are better for that. Cap them is a shade of one million. " Pensions are only as good for as long as you've paid into them. In retirement you'll likely be paying income tax on them and if you want it in full you definitely will. ISA's were designed as a tax free way to save, I find it odd you'd be in favour of taxing savings. ISA's aren't solely for retirement it was merely an example of care costs. | |||
| |||
"There's headlines from the Resolution Foundation that have bugged me recently as ideas usually turn into policy. The idea of capping and taxing ISA's beyond £100k as they view it as rich or a rich only activity. If there's a thought about taxing "rich" people for years, likely decades of saving, why aren't taxes increased on goods or services directly used by 'the rich' in the first instance. Added VAT on say Rolex, Patek Philippe, first class flights, private jets, luxury cars and clothes, caviar. At least everyone has the option to save, whereas very few have the option of a Cartier sunglasses or a Lamborghini. There seems a world of difference in saving for retirement or a rainy day and being income rich. Social care is £25k per yr right now, a new small electric car is £25k, used maybe £10k, so £100k is not going to stretch that far. If a cap is put on peoples ability to save, if anything it will act as a disincentive to save, neither 'the rich' or low incomes will bother, as they are now - either due to low rates, consumption habits, knowledge or forward planning. Pensions are not included in this cap. There is no particular reason for capital growth or income made from savings should not be taxed as anything else, is there? Encouraging some level of savings tax free is sensible. £100k of investment can amount to significantly more in growth over many years. It's also a lot of money to save. Someone wealthy will hit this figure very quickly, just like income tax. Most people will take a lifetime to get to this. The wealthy will still save or spend as they wish. They will just have to pay tax. The majority will probably never make the £100k limit so it will not change their incentives or motivation. There is a case for an instrument equivalent to pensions that is used to pay for old age care though." To be clear- there isn't a cap, a group were only talking about it. For me £100k seems so arbitrary when literally millions of £ are traded daily. It seems strange that £100k is seen as wealthy when, the wealthy likely don't have ISA's. You do hit on a point though, if ISA's were intended for share trading purposes then how is the UK supposed to attract investment if there is a cap. Leave it to hedge funds, Saudis and trusted bankers? | |||
| |||
"I guess it depends on the type of ISA but 100k is a lot, if you consider that person should also have emergency funds and be saving in a pension. It would be interesting to see the stats on the overall net wealth of someone with 100k in an ISA. I haven't seen the deatil, but whatever the cap, it should be a mount contributed, not current value. I can understand the amount contributed reducing, it used to be 5 raising to 10 then 15k now £20k per year, but I think the report said only 1.2m have over 100k in an ISA. What was more apparent was a 'help to save' account designed for low incomes was not being used, so either people are broke, don't save or are not inclined to, but given ISA's are decades of long term accumulation and the whole point of them is for rainy day, retirement, emergency savings - why put people off at all.1.2m feels about right. That's 3pc of adults. I'd suggest that the top 3pc of ppl are seen as being wealthy. Why would a cap put ppl off saving ? They aren't saving now - if they know they'll be getting taxed, what would be the point in saving, may as well buy a Rolex.I may have missed something. They'd only be taxed if they got to 100k right ? That is the idea put forward by the 'think tank'. I don't see 100k as being enough to sustain a decent standard of living in retirement.nor do I. But pensions are better for that. Cap them is a shade of one million. Pensions are only as good for as long as you've paid into them. In retirement you'll likely be paying income tax on them and if you want it in full you definitely will. ISA's were designed as a tax free way to save, I find it odd you'd be in favour of taxing savings. ISA's aren't solely for retirement it was merely an example of care costs. " Again, you aren't addressing the point. £100k is more money than the bar majority of people will ever save. Only the wealthiest benefit from this being tax free. So, it does not change savings habits. £100k is arbitrary, but does not seem unreasonable on that basis. Why do you think otherwise? Pension investments can remain tax free to a much higher limit and care investment the same as they benefit society. Why should other money be tax free if it only benefits the individual as income? ISAs were designed to provide more money for the finance and investment industry and those with enough spare money for long term, non-essential saving. You think it was to benefit the majority of the population? | |||
"There's headlines from the Resolution Foundation that have bugged me recently as ideas usually turn into policy. The idea of capping and taxing ISA's beyond £100k as they view it as rich or a rich only activity. If there's a thought about taxing "rich" people for years, likely decades of saving, why aren't taxes increased on goods or services directly used by 'the rich' in the first instance. Added VAT on say Rolex, Patek Philippe, first class flights, private jets, luxury cars and clothes, caviar. At least everyone has the option to save, whereas very few have the option of a Cartier sunglasses or a Lamborghini. There seems a world of difference in saving for retirement or a rainy day and being income rich. Social care is £25k per yr right now, a new small electric car is £25k, used maybe £10k, so £100k is not going to stretch that far. If a cap is put on peoples ability to save, if anything it will act as a disincentive to save, neither 'the rich' or low incomes will bother, as they are now - either due to low rates, consumption habits, knowledge or forward planning. Pensions are not included in this cap. There is no particular reason for capital growth or income made from savings should not be taxed as anything else, is there? Encouraging some level of savings tax free is sensible. £100k of investment can amount to significantly more in growth over many years. It's also a lot of money to save. Someone wealthy will hit this figure very quickly, just like income tax. Most people will take a lifetime to get to this. The wealthy will still save or spend as they wish. They will just have to pay tax. The majority will probably never make the £100k limit so it will not change their incentives or motivation. There is a case for an instrument equivalent to pensions that is used to pay for old age care though. To be clear- there isn't a cap, a group were only talking about it. For me £100k seems so arbitrary when literally millions of £ are traded daily. It seems strange that £100k is seen as wealthy when, the wealthy likely don't have ISA's. You do hit on a point though, if ISA's were intended for share trading purposes then how is the UK supposed to attract investment if there is a cap. Leave it to hedge funds, Saudis and trusted bankers? " How do you think that pensions are invested differently to ISAs? | |||
"I guess it depends on the type of ISA but 100k is a lot, if you consider that person should also have emergency funds and be saving in a pension. It would be interesting to see the stats on the overall net wealth of someone with 100k in an ISA. I haven't seen the deatil, but whatever the cap, it should be a mount contributed, not current value. I can understand the amount contributed reducing, it used to be 5 raising to 10 then 15k now £20k per year, but I think the report said only 1.2m have over 100k in an ISA. What was more apparent was a 'help to save' account designed for low incomes was not being used, so either people are broke, don't save or are not inclined to, but given ISA's are decades of long term accumulation and the whole point of them is for rainy day, retirement, emergency savings - why put people off at all.1.2m feels about right. That's 3pc of adults. I'd suggest that the top 3pc of ppl are seen as being wealthy. Why would a cap put ppl off saving ? They aren't saving now - if they know they'll be getting taxed, what would be the point in saving, may as well buy a Rolex.I may have missed something. They'd only be taxed if they got to 100k right ? That is the idea put forward by the 'think tank'. I don't see 100k as being enough to sustain a decent standard of living in retirement.nor do I. But pensions are better for that. Cap them is a shade of one million. Pensions are only as good for as long as you've paid into them. In retirement you'll likely be paying income tax on them and if you want it in full you definitely will. ISA's were designed as a tax free way to save, I find it odd you'd be in favour of taxing savings. ISA's aren't solely for retirement it was merely an example of care costs. Again, you aren't addressing the point. £100k is more money than the bar majority of people will ever save. Only the wealthiest benefit from this being tax free. So, it does not change savings habits. £100k is arbitrary, but does not seem unreasonable on that basis. Why do you think otherwise? Pension investments can remain tax free to a much higher limit and care investment the same as they benefit society. Why should other money be tax free if it only benefits the individual as income? ISAs were designed to provide more money for the finance and investment industry and those with enough spare money for long term, non-essential saving. You think it was to benefit the majority of the population?" Real estate the best investment anyone can make.  | |||
" Again, you aren't addressing the point. £100k is more money than the bar majority of people will ever save. Only the wealthiest benefit from this being tax free. So, it does not change savings habits. £100k is arbitrary, but does not seem unreasonable on that basis. Why do you think otherwise? Pension investments can remain tax free to a much higher limit and care investment the same as they benefit society. Why should other money be tax free if it only benefits the individual as income? ISAs were designed to provide more money for the finance and investment industry and those with enough spare money for long term, non-essential saving. You think it was to benefit the majority of the population?" I don't think you are seeing the point myself. People are not saving and pensions are taxable as soon as you draw them. The average held in UK ISA's was just over £20k. It is not as you say that people can't save. It is the fact people choose not to. If you think over someone's lifetime that their ability to save equates to £20k, there's either something wrong with either UK's standard of living or people's interests in doing so. Either way, once a tax is introduced, it wont be removed and the limit will be moved - obviously it's disincentivising to saving how is it not, it is a tax - when low and average earners need incentives to do so. | |||
" Again, you aren't addressing the point. £100k is more money than the bar majority of people will ever save. Only the wealthiest benefit from this being tax free. So, it does not change savings habits. £100k is arbitrary, but does not seem unreasonable on that basis. Why do you think otherwise? Pension investments can remain tax free to a much higher limit and care investment the same as they benefit society. Why should other money be tax free if it only benefits the individual as income? ISAs were designed to provide more money for the finance and investment industry and those with enough spare money for long term, non-essential saving. You think it was to benefit the majority of the population? I don't think you are seeing the point myself. People are not saving and pensions are taxable as soon as you draw them. The average held in UK ISA's was just over £20k. It is not as you say that people can't save. It is the fact people choose not to. If you think over someone's lifetime that their ability to save equates to £20k, there's either something wrong with either UK's standard of living or people's interests in doing so. Either way, once a tax is introduced, it wont be removed and the limit will be moved - obviously it's disincentivising to saving how is it not, it is a tax - when low and average earners need incentives to do so. " pensions are more tax effective than ISAs in almost all circumstances (ATM at least). Yes, you do pay income tax on some of it, but it went in gross of income tax. Even if your income level hasn't changed in retirement (so are paying the same income tax) 25pc is tax free. That is why if you are saving for things beyond 55/60 pensions are probably yr best bet. ISAs are a good way of saving for something before then. But that's probably my third pot of savings behind emergency cash and old age savings. Which is part of the reason why ISA pots are so low. I have a pretty good saving habit. Im way on track to be more than fine in retirement. My isa savings are higher than the average but not close to 100k. Extrapolaying, my net wealth would be c 2m by the time I get to 100k of Isa. I agree we have a savings gap. I'm not convinced a isa cap would put people off and I'd rather give tax breaks to to those who need it or where it would encourage savings. Imo your goal of encouraging savings (which I passionately believe in) isn't being helped by having an unlimited ISA tax allowance and end won't be harmed by a cap. I've heard part of the reason that the autoenrolement percentages haven't gone up is.becaue of the tax relief costs. There's a better place to chuck money. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Whilst this isn't an argument of the benefits of isa's vs pensions, I've been through enough periods of unemployment whilst still saving to realise that putting money aside is an essential. Realistically though, it's a fairly recent change in the provision of workplace pensions contributions but gig work and zero hr contracts still exist for a large number of people where no contributions are made. It's unlikely if general workers aren't saving these groups certainly aren't. " agreed. That's what I call emergency funds which I wouldn't put in ISA (not until I have a decent amount of savings). But that's because I'm s&s not cash. I don't believe that anyone contributing smallish amounts will be put off by a £100k cap. I'd imagine many would see £100k in savings as being beyond aspirational. To repeat. I am not against encouraging the average person to save more. I'm on the front line of that war. I disagree the cap will have any effect on winning or losing that war. In the same way I don't believe a 20k pa contribution limit puts off someone. | |||
| |||
"As a slight side note to this. In non IS A savings like building societys, the first £1k of interest per year is tax free for standard tax payers. I think it falls to £500 for higher tax payers. Until fairly recently the interest rates were so low you would have needed quite a bit of savings to breach that limit" good point. that makes cash ISAs a bit less attractive again in the order or where I save and why. Irrc premium bonds fall outside of this allowance too. | |||
" Again, you aren't addressing the point. £100k is more money than the bar majority of people will ever save. Only the wealthiest benefit from this being tax free. So, it does not change savings habits. £100k is arbitrary, but does not seem unreasonable on that basis. Why do you think otherwise? Pension investments can remain tax free to a much higher limit and care investment the same as they benefit society. Why should other money be tax free if it only benefits the individual as income? ISAs were designed to provide more money for the finance and investment industry and those with enough spare money for long term, non-essential saving. You think it was to benefit the majority of the population? I don't think you are seeing the point myself. People are not saving and pensions are taxable as soon as you draw them. The average held in UK ISA's was just over £20k. It is not as you say that people can't save. It is the fact people choose not to. If you think over someone's lifetime that their ability to save equates to £20k, there's either something wrong with either UK's standard of living or people's interests in doing so. Either way, once a tax is introduced, it wont be removed and the limit will be moved - obviously it's disincentivising to saving how is it not, it is a tax - when low and average earners need incentives to do so. " You are making the assumption that people aren't saving because there aren't enough "incentives" to. You seem to be ignoring the fact that many have very little spare cash to save. When added to the materialistic society that we live in that prioritises immediate purchases on credit over rainy day savings, do you believe that a £1m will make any difference to those who would not even be able to save £100k in their lifetimes? The incentive or disincentive is not changed for most people. What is your logic that implies that moving a tax free limit from multiple hundreds of thousands to a hundred thousand will change anything if neither is attainable? Again, personal savings are a benefit to individuals and £100k is certainly adequate to encourage some "rainy day" savings. Pension contributions benefit society and individuals as would an equivalent care insurance. Pensions are paid gross and they too are not taken up for the same reasons that normal savings are not. Your argument just doesn't stack up because people are choosing not to save regardless of tax incentives. Increasing or lowering them makes zero difference to those who should be encouraged rather than those who are comfortable anyway. It seems that you are upset because it would affect you directly. I would also be annoyed by this, but it is dishonest to claim a wider societal impact too. At the current high rates, it really is just a tax loophole for the better off and financial investment companies to benefit from. | |||
| |||
"I am thinking of taking early retirement this year and plan to use my work pension and 2nd property income to give me a salary of £1500 a month which works out to £18k per year after 5 years £90k. If I didn’t have this option then 100k would only last just under 6 years.As I recently turned 55 I personally don’t feel £100k is a lot in a ISA as god forbid but when I get older if I have a serious illness that £100k could end up been swallowed very quickly if god forbid I need a care home." Your pension is not included in a £100k ISA limit. It's independent. You can have millions in that. How much money do you have in a cash or investment ISA that is included in your retirement calculation? | |||
" You are making the assumption that people aren't saving because there aren't enough "incentives" to. You seem to be ignoring the fact that many have very little spare cash to save. When added to the materialistic society that we live in that prioritises immediate purchases on credit over rainy day savings, do you believe that a £1m will make any difference to those who would not even be able to save £100k in their lifetimes? The incentive or disincentive is not changed for most people. What is your logic that implies that moving a tax free limit from multiple hundreds of thousands to a hundred thousand will change anything if neither is attainable? Again, personal savings are a benefit to individuals and £100k is certainly adequate to encourage some "rainy day" savings. Pension contributions benefit society and individuals as would an equivalent care insurance. Pensions are paid gross and they too are not taken up for the same reasons that normal savings are not. Your argument just doesn't stack up because people are choosing not to save regardless of tax incentives. Increasing or lowering them makes zero difference to those who should be encouraged rather than those who are comfortable anyway. It seems that you are upset because it would affect you directly. I would also be annoyed by this, but it is dishonest to claim a wider societal impact too. At the current high rates, it really is just a tax loophole for the better off and financial investment companies to benefit from." To answer you last para first. I see where you're coming from now. You think I have £100,000 in an ISA and are pushing back, not because of the idea of it but as there's someone bringing it up that you think has it that shouldn't. You are free to your opinion but it's sad your judgment gives in to a 'tax the rich' outcome. I'll clear things up. I don't have it. I said in my first post, I want it, and more as I am bothered that in retirement care costs will exceed £25,000 per year if needed. The average UK pension is around £15k after 35yrs of paying in. Any periods of ill health or unemployment, will affect this so savings will be needed which is what an ISA was sold as - tax free. To answer your other points is argumentative really though, when I was earning reasonable money my positions historically didn't promote pensions so I never paid into one, being a student meant irregular hours - no pension, periods of unemployment meant I didn't earn. Nevertheless, I have saved throughout. Employer pension contributions only came in the last 10 ish yrs so there's a very long way to go. The affects of inflation on disposable income today, are not the same affects on savings or purchase choices today or historically. People saved during the pandemic, people don't have that luxury now. But peoples habits change like their shopping habits Tescos Aldi. This is no reason to push people back to Tesco though (if you understand that). I pointed out earlier, that people aren't using 'help to save' accounts designed for low incomes. You have repeated exactly what I said, that if consumption habits, general lack of disposable income or lack of forward planning leads to this... then incentivising saving is the only way to - which you disagree on. The logic: barriers = little uptake. As seen with electric cars; initially subsidies encouraged buying. Subsidies were cut and electric car sales slumped. Sale are coming back now only due to greater choice/cheaper cost. | |||
"I am thinking of taking early retirement this year and plan to use my work pension and 2nd property income to give me a salary of £1500 a month which works out to £18k per year after 5 years £90k. If I didn’t have this option then 100k would only last just under 6 years.As I recently turned 55 I personally don’t feel £100k is a lot in a ISA as god forbid but when I get older if I have a serious illness that £100k could end up been swallowed very quickly if god forbid I need a care home. Your pension is not included in a £100k ISA limit. It's independent. You can have millions in that. How much money do you have in a cash or investment ISA that is included in your retirement calculation?" . I know that my pension is not included in the £100k ISA limit I am just trying to explain how whilst £100k is a lot of money how quickly it can get spent on everyday things if you have no other income | |||
"I am thinking of taking early retirement this year and plan to use my work pension and 2nd property income to give me a salary of £1500 a month which works out to £18k per year after 5 years £90k. If I didn’t have this option then 100k would only last just under 6 years.As I recently turned 55 I personally don’t feel £100k is a lot in a ISA as god forbid but when I get older if I have a serious illness that £100k could end up been swallowed very quickly if god forbid I need a care home. Your pension is not included in a £100k ISA limit. It's independent. You can have millions in that. How much money do you have in a cash or investment ISA that is included in your retirement calculation?" Can I ask how you understand a stocks and shares ISA works. I'd like to know how/who you think people accumulate £ millions. | |||
"I am thinking of taking early retirement this year and plan to use my work pension and 2nd property income to give me a salary of £1500 a month which works out to £18k per year after 5 years £90k. If I didn’t have this option then 100k would only last just under 6 years.As I recently turned 55 I personally don’t feel £100k is a lot in a ISA as god forbid but when I get older if I have a serious illness that £100k could end up been swallowed very quickly if god forbid I need a care home. Your pension is not included in a £100k ISA limit. It's independent. You can have millions in that. How much money do you have in a cash or investment ISA that is included in your retirement calculation?. I know that my pension is not included in the £100k ISA limit I am just trying to explain how whilst £100k is a lot of money how quickly it can get spent on everyday things if you have no other income " The point is that the ISA is additional saving. It isn't intended to provide income for living expenses. That's what pensions are for. You are not expected to survive on the investment income based on £100k. An ISA is, effectively "free" bonus money to do with as you wish for discretionary spending. This line seems, to me, outside of the scope. | |||
"I am thinking of taking early retirement this year and plan to use my work pension and 2nd property income to give me a salary of £1500 a month which works out to £18k per year after 5 years £90k. If I didn’t have this option then 100k would only last just under 6 years.As I recently turned 55 I personally don’t feel £100k is a lot in a ISA as god forbid but when I get older if I have a serious illness that £100k could end up been swallowed very quickly if god forbid I need a care home. Your pension is not included in a £100k ISA limit. It's independent. You can have millions in that. How much money do you have in a cash or investment ISA that is included in your retirement calculation? Can I ask how you understand a stocks and shares ISA works. I'd like to know how/who you think people accumulate £ millions." I didn't say that you can accumulate millions in an ISA. You can accumulate millions in a pension scheme paid into before tax. You seem to have mixed these two throughout this thread. An ISA is saving for whatever you want. A pension is to provide your living expenses after your retirement. One is discretionary, the other is not. | |||
"I am thinking of taking early retirement this year and plan to use my work pension and 2nd property income to give me a salary of £1500 a month which works out to £18k per year after 5 years £90k. If I didn’t have this option then 100k would only last just under 6 years.As I recently turned 55 I personally don’t feel £100k is a lot in a ISA as god forbid but when I get older if I have a serious illness that £100k could end up been swallowed very quickly if god forbid I need a care home. Your pension is not included in a £100k ISA limit. It's independent. You can have millions in that. How much money do you have in a cash or investment ISA that is included in your retirement calculation?. I know that my pension is not included in the £100k ISA limit I am just trying to explain how whilst £100k is a lot of money how quickly it can get spent on everyday things if you have no other income The point is that the ISA is additional saving. It isn't intended to provide income for living expenses. That's what pensions are for. You are not expected to survive on the investment income based on £100k. An ISA is, effectively "free" bonus money to do with as you wish for discretionary spending. This line seems, to me, outside of the scope." As said earlier, if you wanted to tax the rich caviar, Cartier, Lamborghini, Rolex, yatch makers etc etc etc are all available. | |||
" I didn't say that you can accumulate millions in an ISA. You can accumulate millions in a pension scheme paid into before tax. " Thanks for clearing that up | |||
" You are making the assumption that people aren't saving because there aren't enough "incentives" to. You seem to be ignoring the fact that many have very little spare cash to save. When added to the materialistic society that we live in that prioritises immediate purchases on credit over rainy day savings, do you believe that a £1m will make any difference to those who would not even be able to save £100k in their lifetimes? The incentive or disincentive is not changed for most people. What is your logic that implies that moving a tax free limit from multiple hundreds of thousands to a hundred thousand will change anything if neither is attainable? Again, personal savings are a benefit to individuals and £100k is certainly adequate to encourage some "rainy day" savings. Pension contributions benefit society and individuals as would an equivalent care insurance. Pensions are paid gross and they too are not taken up for the same reasons that normal savings are not. Your argument just doesn't stack up because people are choosing not to save regardless of tax incentives. Increasing or lowering them makes zero difference to those who should be encouraged rather than those who are comfortable anyway. It seems that you are upset because it would affect you directly. I would also be annoyed by this, but it is dishonest to claim a wider societal impact too. At the current high rates, it really is just a tax loophole for the better off and financial investment companies to benefit from. To answer you last para first. I see where you're coming from now. You think I have £100,000 in an ISA and are pushing back, not because of the idea of it but as there's someone bringing it up that you think has it that shouldn't. You are free to your opinion but it's sad your judgment gives in to a 'tax the rich' outcome. I'll clear things up. I don't have it. I said in my first post, I want it, and more as I am bothered that in retirement care costs will exceed £25,000 per year if needed. The average UK pension is around £15k after 35yrs of paying in. Any periods of ill health or unemployment, will affect this so savings will be needed which is what an ISA was sold as - tax free. To answer your other points is argumentative really though, when I was earning reasonable money my positions historically didn't promote pensions so I never paid into one, being a student meant irregular hours - no pension, periods of unemployment meant I didn't earn. Nevertheless, I have saved throughout. Employer pension contributions only came in the last 10 ish yrs so there's a very long way to go. The affects of inflation on disposable income today, are not the same affects on savings or purchase choices today or historically. People saved during the pandemic, people don't have that luxury now. But peoples habits change like their shopping habits Tescos Aldi. This is no reason to push people back to Tesco though (if you understand that). I pointed out earlier, that people aren't using 'help to save' accounts designed for low incomes. You have repeated exactly what I said, that if consumption habits, general lack of disposable income or lack of forward planning leads to this... then incentivising saving is the only way to - which you disagree on. The logic: barriers = little uptake. As seen with electric cars; initially subsidies encouraged buying. Subsidies were cut and electric car sales slumped. Sale are coming back now only due to greater choice/cheaper cost. " You don't seem to be arguing with the fact that the vast majority of the population do not save anywhere near £100k in their lifetimes. So, can you explain how making that the limit is a disincentive? If the intention is to save for income after your retirement, could you explain why you would not save into a pension rather than an ISA? Also, why would an ISA be better than a form of care insurance or equivalent savings to a pension scheme if that were made available? How does society benefit from someone saving more than £100k to spend on whatever they fancy? The rich should be taxed, shouldn't they? Especially if there is a system that benefits them more than the majority of other people, no? Electric car sales have not, actually, "slumped", but other than that I still do not see your logic. A car subsidy allows an otherwise unattainable item to become affordable and it allows production of EVs and the roll out of charging infrastructure to be scaled up to allow for economies of scale to reduce prices to the point that subsidies are no longer necessary. If you cannot afford to save a savings benefit makes no difference. If you have a short term view or a materialistic one, a savings tax benefit will also have no effect. Of course, if you can explain what would change in either case, please do. What is being proposed is reducing a benefit that is not being used by those who need it, only those who do not. | |||
" You are making the assumption that people aren't saving because there aren't enough "incentives" to. You seem to be ignoring the fact that many have very little spare cash to save. When added to the materialistic society that we live in that prioritises immediate purchases on credit over rainy day savings, do you believe that a £1m will make any difference to those who would not even be able to save £100k in their lifetimes? The incentive or disincentive is not changed for most people. What is your logic that implies that moving a tax free limit from multiple hundreds of thousands to a hundred thousand will change anything if neither is attainable? Again, personal savings are a benefit to individuals and £100k is certainly adequate to encourage some "rainy day" savings. Pension contributions benefit society and individuals as would an equivalent care insurance. Pensions are paid gross and they too are not taken up for the same reasons that normal savings are not. Your argument just doesn't stack up because people are choosing not to save regardless of tax incentives. Increasing or lowering them makes zero difference to those who should be encouraged rather than those who are comfortable anyway. It seems that you are upset because it would affect you directly. I would also be annoyed by this, but it is dishonest to claim a wider societal impact too. At the current high rates, it really is just a tax loophole for the better off and financial investment companies to benefit from. To answer you last para first. I see where you're coming from now. You think I have £100,000 in an ISA and are pushing back, not because of the idea of it but as there's someone bringing it up that you think has it that shouldn't. You are free to your opinion but it's sad your judgment gives in to a 'tax the rich' outcome. I'll clear things up. I don't have it. I said in my first post, I want it, and more as I am bothered that in retirement care costs will exceed £25,000 per year if needed. The average UK pension is around £15k after 35yrs of paying in. Any periods of ill health or unemployment, will affect this so savings will be needed which is what an ISA was sold as - tax free. To answer your other points is argumentative really though, when I was earning reasonable money my positions historically didn't promote pensions so I never paid into one, being a student meant irregular hours - no pension, periods of unemployment meant I didn't earn. Nevertheless, I have saved throughout. Employer pension contributions only came in the last 10 ish yrs so there's a very long way to go. The affects of inflation on disposable income today, are not the same affects on savings or purchase choices today or historically. People saved during the pandemic, people don't have that luxury now. But peoples habits change like their shopping habits Tescos Aldi. This is no reason to push people back to Tesco though (if you understand that). I pointed out earlier, that people aren't using 'help to save' accounts designed for low incomes. You have repeated exactly what I said, that if consumption habits, general lack of disposable income or lack of forward planning leads to this... then incentivising saving is the only way to - which you disagree on. The logic: barriers = little uptake. As seen with electric cars; initially subsidies encouraged buying. Subsidies were cut and electric car sales slumped. Sale are coming back now only due to greater choice/cheaper cost. You don't seem to be arguing with the fact that the vast majority of the population do not save anywhere near £100k in their lifetimes. So, can you explain how making that the limit is a disincentive? If the intention is to save for income after your retirement, could you explain why you would not save into a pension rather than an ISA? Also, why would an ISA be better than a form of care insurance or equivalent savings to a pension scheme if that were made available? How does society benefit from someone saving more than £100k to spend on whatever they fancy? The rich should be taxed, shouldn't they? Especially if there is a system that benefits them more than the majority of other people, no? Electric car sales have not, actually, "slumped", but other than that I still do not see your logic. A car subsidy allows an otherwise unattainable item to become affordable and it allows production of EVs and the roll out of charging infrastructure to be scaled up to allow for economies of scale to reduce prices to the point that subsidies are no longer necessary. If you cannot afford to save a savings benefit makes no difference. If you have a short term view or a materialistic one, a savings tax benefit will also have no effect. Of course, if you can explain what would change in either case, please do. What is being proposed is reducing a benefit that is not being used by those who need it, only those who do not." So there's adverts to eat your 5 a day. Do you eat your 5 a day. No. Do you try, Yes. Millions are spent on advertising, supermarkets rinse suppliers to get the cheapest goods they can, they throw away thousands of £ due to waste each year. If we buy them, we throw them away as we don't eat them. YET - the adverts continue. Why? For our health, diets, long life and so on. If they stopped. out belts would burst and we'd turn more to takeaway's than ever. Apply the same to saving. You are saying because only some do it (my lowly self included), it should have a taper rate, because not enough do it or because they dont offer a good enough return. That there is only one worthwhile way to retire, with a pension. Savings help but you'll never need or achieve £100,000 so don't bother, it's unattainable it's only for the rich - throw the idea in the bin. I doubt my ill thought response is the best but there you go. | |||
" You are making the assumption that people aren't saving because there aren't enough "incentives" to. You seem to be ignoring the fact that many have very little spare cash to save. When added to the materialistic society that we live in that prioritises immediate purchases on credit over rainy day savings, do you believe that a £1m will make any difference to those who would not even be able to save £100k in their lifetimes? The incentive or disincentive is not changed for most people. What is your logic that implies that moving a tax free limit from multiple hundreds of thousands to a hundred thousand will change anything if neither is attainable? Again, personal savings are a benefit to individuals and £100k is certainly adequate to encourage some "rainy day" savings. Pension contributions benefit society and individuals as would an equivalent care insurance. Pensions are paid gross and they too are not taken up for the same reasons that normal savings are not. Your argument just doesn't stack up because people are choosing not to save regardless of tax incentives. Increasing or lowering them makes zero difference to those who should be encouraged rather than those who are comfortable anyway. It seems that you are upset because it would affect you directly. I would also be annoyed by this, but it is dishonest to claim a wider societal impact too. At the current high rates, it really is just a tax loophole for the better off and financial investment companies to benefit from. To answer you last para first. I see where you're coming from now. You think I have £100,000 in an ISA and are pushing back, not because of the idea of it but as there's someone bringing it up that you think has it that shouldn't. You are free to your opinion but it's sad your judgment gives in to a 'tax the rich' outcome. I'll clear things up. I don't have it. I said in my first post, I want it, and more as I am bothered that in retirement care costs will exceed £25,000 per year if needed. The average UK pension is around £15k after 35yrs of paying in. Any periods of ill health or unemployment, will affect this so savings will be needed which is what an ISA was sold as - tax free. To answer your other points is argumentative really though, when I was earning reasonable money my positions historically didn't promote pensions so I never paid into one, being a student meant irregular hours - no pension, periods of unemployment meant I didn't earn. Nevertheless, I have saved throughout. Employer pension contributions only came in the last 10 ish yrs so there's a very long way to go. The affects of inflation on disposable income today, are not the same affects on savings or purchase choices today or historically. People saved during the pandemic, people don't have that luxury now. But peoples habits change like their shopping habits Tescos Aldi. This is no reason to push people back to Tesco though (if you understand that). I pointed out earlier, that people aren't using 'help to save' accounts designed for low incomes. You have repeated exactly what I said, that if consumption habits, general lack of disposable income or lack of forward planning leads to this... then incentivising saving is the only way to - which you disagree on. The logic: barriers = little uptake. As seen with electric cars; initially subsidies encouraged buying. Subsidies were cut and electric car sales slumped. Sale are coming back now only due to greater choice/cheaper cost. You don't seem to be arguing with the fact that the vast majority of the population do not save anywhere near £100k in their lifetimes. So, can you explain how making that the limit is a disincentive? If the intention is to save for income after your retirement, could you explain why you would not save into a pension rather than an ISA? Also, why would an ISA be better than a form of care insurance or equivalent savings to a pension scheme if that were made available? How does society benefit from someone saving more than £100k to spend on whatever they fancy? The rich should be taxed, shouldn't they? Especially if there is a system that benefits them more than the majority of other people, no? Electric car sales have not, actually, "slumped", but other than that I still do not see your logic. A car subsidy allows an otherwise unattainable item to become affordable and it allows production of EVs and the roll out of charging infrastructure to be scaled up to allow for economies of scale to reduce prices to the point that subsidies are no longer necessary. If you cannot afford to save a savings benefit makes no difference. If you have a short term view or a materialistic one, a savings tax benefit will also have no effect. Of course, if you can explain what would change in either case, please do. What is being proposed is reducing a benefit that is not being used by those who need it, only those who do not. So there's adverts to eat your 5 a day. Do you eat your 5 a day. No. Do you try, Yes. Millions are spent on advertising, supermarkets rinse suppliers to get the cheapest goods they can, they throw away thousands of £ due to waste each year. If we buy them, we throw them away as we don't eat them. YET - the adverts continue. Why? For our health, diets, long life and so on. If they stopped. out belts would burst and we'd turn more to takeaway's than ever. Apply the same to saving. You are saying because only some do it (my lowly self included), it should have a taper rate, because not enough do it or because they dont offer a good enough return. That there is only one worthwhile way to retire, with a pension. Savings help but you'll never need or achieve £100,000 so don't bother, it's unattainable it's only for the rich - throw the idea in the bin. I doubt my ill thought response is the best but there you go. " There is no tax incentive to eat your five a day, is there? It's education. Spend the money on financial education. The tax incentive is making no difference if the majority of people's lifetime discretionary savings come nowhere near £100k. Especially if they cannot let alone that they choose not to. What is the saving for? Who does it benefit? Why do you need another way to retire other than a pension if that can have millions in it? Again, an ISA is for discretionary saving. To spend on any damn thing. You do not disagree that most people cannot hope to achieve that in their lifetimes, so what are you upset about? Save £100k and enjoy the benefits. I don't see any of your arguments as addressing the point. Pensions are for your retirement. There is nothing preventing you from saving huge sums tax free into those. ISAs are to spend in anything. £100k is a lot and more than most people can manage even if they want to. How does higher tax free investment above the amount that almost everyone can hope to achieve make them more likely to save? | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm not upset and don't have an argument. The only question I have is why after 20 years of saving is £100,000 considered rich. You have asked "why" "what" and "how's" as if I design policy. When in fact you are the one cheering for the tax rise, so it is you who should be justifying it. " I haven't "cheered" for a tax rise. I have asked what the justification is for having more than £100k of savings outside of your pension (and I would hope a method of paying for old age care)? Especially if most people do not even have the money, however hard they try, to save that much in their lifetime. If the majority cannot achieve this even if they wanted to, then if you can, you are "rich". You haven't been able to explain this as far as I can see? Can you? | |||
"I'm not upset and don't have an argument. The only question I have is why after 20 years of saving is £100,000 considered rich. You have asked "why" "what" and "how's" as if I design policy. When in fact you are the one cheering for the tax rise, so it is you who should be justifying it. " 100 of savings after 20 years isn't rich. However thise who have 100k in ISAs have (I would bet on the whole) a lot more net worth than 100k. I'd estimate £2m. That's my issue. They don't need encouraging. They don't need tax breaks. I'd rather tax money goes towards encouraging people to save their first dollar. You said earlier you didn't have a pension but have since saved.... But the lifetime allowance has decreased over time ... So it didn't put you off starting ... What did get you on the saving train ? | |||
| |||
"So, to be clear almost nobody has £100k saved with those earning over £150k having £75k in savings." It makes you wonder why they are proposing to tax them, if almost nobody is going to be affected. | |||
"So, to be clear almost nobody has £100k saved with those earning over £150k having £75k in savings. It makes you wonder why they are proposing to tax them, if almost nobody is going to be affected." "According to the Resolution Foundation, nearly a third of Isa’s total savings are in the hands of the 10% wealthiest families According to the think tank, ISAS will cost the government a total of £4.3bn a year in lost tax revenue by the end of 2023/2024 as interest rates rise. It’s a similar picture for Lifetime ISAs, which target aspiring starters or retirement savers under the age of 40. It is estimated that around half of the £670 million in Lisa tax breaks will go to the top five wealthiest households. The report’s authors note that while savings are progressive, 41 per cent of the £1.3bn of lost tax revenue goes to the wealthiest tenth of households, reflecting their much higher level of savings." So it would gain the Government hundreds of millions of tax revenues that are accruing to the wealthy who don't need the benefit. | |||
"This is from Money - UK savings statistics 2023 "The average person in the UK has £17,365 in their savings. 34% of adults had either no savings, or less than £1000, in a savings account. 61% of UK adults save money either every, or most, months. Almost two-thirds (65%) of people believe they wouldn’t be able to last three months without borrowing money. Savings accounts are the most popular savings method among UK adults, with over half (57%) using these to save money. 23% of savers don’t check the interest rate before opening an account. Around one in seven (15%) UK adults don’t have savings of any kind. UK savings statistics show a strong correlation between higher income groups and increased ISA value. The lowest income band (£0-£4,999) recorded the lowest average ISA market value (£10,354), with each subsequent band rising in value before peaking with account holders earning £150,000 or more. With a median value of almost £75,000, this group were found to have an average of around 36% more ISA savings than the next highest income band (£100,000-£149,000)." So, to be clear almost nobody has £100k saved with those earning over £150k having £75k in savings. Over 65s have the highest number of ISA savers and the highest average amount which is £46k So, who does a £100k+ ISA limit benefit?" ME | |||
"So, to be clear almost nobody has £100k saved with those earning over £150k having £75k in savings." "It makes you wonder why they are proposing to tax them, if almost nobody is going to be affected." ""According to the Resolution Foundation, nearly a third of Isa’s total savings are in the hands of the 10% wealthiest families According to the think tank, ISAS will cost the government a total of £4.3bn a year in lost tax revenue by the end of 2023/2024 as interest rates rise. It’s a similar picture for Lifetime ISAs, which target aspiring starters or retirement savers under the age of 40. It is estimated that around half of the £670 million in Lisa tax breaks will go to the top five wealthiest households. The report’s authors note that while savings are progressive, 41 per cent of the £1.3bn of lost tax revenue goes to the wealthiest tenth of households, reflecting their much higher level of savings." So it would gain the Government hundreds of millions of tax revenues that are accruing to the wealthy who don't need the benefit." But that's just quoting a jumble of figures which don't relate to what you were originally saying. "nearly a third of Isa’s total savings are in the hands of the 10% wealthiest families". OK, but how much of that is in ISAs over £100k? "ISAS will cost the government a total of £4.3bn a year in lost tax revenue". OK, but that's in total, including all the poorer people, not just the rich. "It is estimated that around half of the £670 million in Lisa tax breaks will go to the top five wealthiest households". Again, that's all of the rich people, not just those with ISAs over £100k. And how does that £670m match up with the £4.3b they were claiming in the previous paragraph? "41 per cent of the £1.3bn of lost tax revenue goes to the wealthiest tenth of households". Oh look, another different yearly figure, but again it's for all rich people, not just those with £100k ISAs. So all that quotation doesn't support your argument at all. How many people have £100k ISAs? If you're right in your assertion that is almost nobody, then the government won't get very much extra revenue from them. Unless you think that there are a handful of people with hundreds of millions stored in ISAs. | |||
"So, to be clear almost nobody has £100k saved with those earning over £150k having £75k in savings. It makes you wonder why they are proposing to tax them, if almost nobody is going to be affected. "According to the Resolution Foundation, nearly a third of Isa’s total savings are in the hands of the 10% wealthiest families According to the think tank, ISAS will cost the government a total of £4.3bn a year in lost tax revenue by the end of 2023/2024 as interest rates rise. It’s a similar picture for Lifetime ISAs, which target aspiring starters or retirement savers under the age of 40. It is estimated that around half of the £670 million in Lisa tax breaks will go to the top five wealthiest households. The report’s authors note that while savings are progressive, 41 per cent of the £1.3bn of lost tax revenue goes to the wealthiest tenth of households, reflecting their much higher level of savings." So it would gain the Government hundreds of millions of tax revenues that are accruing to the wealthy who don't need the benefit. But that's just quoting a jumble of figures which don't relate to what you were originally saying. "nearly a third of Isa’s total savings are in the hands of the 10% wealthiest families". OK, but how much of that is in ISAs over £100k? "ISAS will cost the government a total of £4.3bn a year in lost tax revenue". OK, but that's in total, including all the poorer people, not just the rich. "It is estimated that around half of the £670 million in Lisa tax breaks will go to the top five wealthiest households". Again, that's all of the rich people, not just those with ISAs over £100k. And how does that £670m match up with the £4.3b they were claiming in the previous paragraph? "41 per cent of the £1.3bn of lost tax revenue goes to the wealthiest tenth of households". Oh look, another different yearly figure, but again it's for all rich people, not just those with £100k ISAs. So all that quotation doesn't support your argument at all. How many people have £100k ISAs? If you're right in your assertion that is almost nobody, then the government won't get very much extra revenue from them. Unless you think that there are a handful of people with hundreds of millions stored in ISAs." It is not a "jumble". They are perfectly coherent but I didn't copy the entire article. However, if you don't like the answer, why not look up the Resolution Foundation report yourself and answer your own question? | |||
"So, to be clear almost nobody has £100k saved with those earning over £150k having £75k in savings. It makes you wonder why they are proposing to tax them, if almost nobody is going to be affected. "According to the Resolution Foundation, nearly a third of Isa’s total savings are in the hands of the 10% wealthiest families According to the think tank, ISAS will cost the government a total of £4.3bn a year in lost tax revenue by the end of 2023/2024 as interest rates rise. It’s a similar picture for Lifetime ISAs, which target aspiring starters or retirement savers under the age of 40. It is estimated that around half of the £670 million in Lisa tax breaks will go to the top five wealthiest households. The report’s authors note that while savings are progressive, 41 per cent of the £1.3bn of lost tax revenue goes to the wealthiest tenth of households, reflecting their much higher level of savings." So it would gain the Government hundreds of millions of tax revenues that are accruing to the wealthy who don't need the benefit. But that's just quoting a jumble of figures which don't relate to what you were originally saying. "nearly a third of Isa’s total savings are in the hands of the 10% wealthiest families". OK, but how much of that is in ISAs over £100k? "ISAS will cost the government a total of £4.3bn a year in lost tax revenue". OK, but that's in total, including all the poorer people, not just the rich. "It is estimated that around half of the £670 million in Lisa tax breaks will go to the top five wealthiest households". Again, that's all of the rich people, not just those with ISAs over £100k. And how does that £670m match up with the £4.3b they were claiming in the previous paragraph? "41 per cent of the £1.3bn of lost tax revenue goes to the wealthiest tenth of households". Oh look, another different yearly figure, but again it's for all rich people, not just those with £100k ISAs. So all that quotation doesn't support your argument at all. How many people have £100k ISAs? If you're right in your assertion that is almost nobody, then the government won't get very much extra revenue from them. Unless you think that there are a handful of people with hundreds of millions stored in ISAs." the 4.3bn is ISA tax. The 1.3bn is savings (interest) and Lisa isnt the same as ISA. So the numbers are coherent albeit not all strictly on topic (bit related to the fact that any peris aimed at encouraging savings will be most used by the richest). It's fairly safe to say the riches third have 100k at least on their ISAs. Anyone with a half decent advisor would maximise tax plqnning opportunities especially the safe ones like an ISA. So 1.4bn to the top ten wealthiest in ISA tax allowance alone. | |||
"I'm not upset and don't have an argument. The only question I have is why after 20 years of saving is £100,000 considered rich. You have asked "why" "what" and "how's" as if I design policy. When in fact you are the one cheering for the tax rise, so it is you who should be justifying it. 100 of savings after 20 years isn't rich. However thise who have 100k in ISAs have (I would bet on the whole) a lot more net worth than 100k. I'd estimate £2m. That's my issue. They don't need encouraging. They don't need tax breaks. I'd rather tax money goes towards encouraging people to save their first dollar. You said earlier you didn't have a pension but have since saved.... But the lifetime allowance has decreased over time ... So it didn't put you off starting ... What did get you on the saving train ?" I understand your position on why a tax might apply to those with over £100k. I never said I was put off a pension though, I was simply never told about them early enough, so put money into savings. You mentioned the lifetime allowance has reduced though - I was unaware but it emphasises my point. If it can be reduced with pensions, tax free saving will soon be £75k. It will be disincentivised for other products - t&c's will no doubt apply. | |||
"So, to be clear almost nobody has £100k saved with those earning over £150k having £75k in savings." "It makes you wonder why they are proposing to tax them, if almost nobody is going to be affected." ""According to the Resolution Foundation, nearly a third of Isa’s total savings are in the hands of the 10% wealthiest families According to the think tank, ISAS will cost the government a total of £4.3bn a year in lost tax revenue by the end of 2023/2024 as interest rates rise. It’s a similar picture for Lifetime ISAs, which target aspiring starters or retirement savers under the age of 40. It is estimated that around half of the £670 million in Lisa tax breaks will go to the top five wealthiest households. The report’s authors note that while savings are progressive, 41 per cent of the £1.3bn of lost tax revenue goes to the wealthiest tenth of households, reflecting their much higher level of savings." So it would gain the Government hundreds of millions of tax revenues that are accruing to the wealthy who don't need the benefit." "But that's just quoting a jumble of figures which don't relate to what you were originally saying. "nearly a third of Isa’s total savings are in the hands of the 10% wealthiest families". OK, but how much of that is in ISAs over £100k? "ISAS will cost the government a total of £4.3bn a year in lost tax revenue". OK, but that's in total, including all the poorer people, not just the rich. "It is estimated that around half of the £670 million in Lisa tax breaks will go to the top five wealthiest households". Again, that's all of the rich people, not just those with ISAs over £100k. And how does that £670m match up with the £4.3b they were claiming in the previous paragraph? "41 per cent of the £1.3bn of lost tax revenue goes to the wealthiest tenth of households". Oh look, another different yearly figure, but again it's for all rich people, not just those with £100k ISAs. So all that quotation doesn't support your argument at all. How many people have £100k ISAs? If you're right in your assertion that is almost nobody, then the government won't get very much extra revenue from them. Unless you think that there are a handful of people with hundreds of millions stored in ISAs." "the 4.3bn is ISA tax. The 1.3bn is savings (interest) and Lisa isnt the same as ISA. So the numbers are coherent albeit not all strictly on topic (bit related to the fact that any peris aimed at encouraging savings will be most used by the richest). It's fairly safe to say the richest third have 100k at least on their ISAs. Anyone with a half decent advisor would maximise tax planning opportunities especially the safe ones like an ISA. So 1.4bn to the top ten wealthiest in ISA tax allowance alone." Oh look, someone that knows what they're talking about. Neatly summarised, thanks. So what the numbers say is that quite a lot of people have ISAs over £100k, and that (obviously) those people are all rich, and therefore we can tax them and get a lot of money. So it isn't "almost nobody" that would be affected. | |||
"So, to be clear almost nobody has £100k saved with those earning over £150k having £75k in savings. It makes you wonder why they are proposing to tax them, if almost nobody is going to be affected. "According to the Resolution Foundation, nearly a third of Isa’s total savings are in the hands of the 10% wealthiest families According to the think tank, ISAS will cost the government a total of £4.3bn a year in lost tax revenue by the end of 2023/2024 as interest rates rise. It’s a similar picture for Lifetime ISAs, which target aspiring starters or retirement savers under the age of 40. It is estimated that around half of the £670 million in Lisa tax breaks will go to the top five wealthiest households. The report’s authors note that while savings are progressive, 41 per cent of the £1.3bn of lost tax revenue goes to the wealthiest tenth of households, reflecting their much higher level of savings." So it would gain the Government hundreds of millions of tax revenues that are accruing to the wealthy who don't need the benefit. But that's just quoting a jumble of figures which don't relate to what you were originally saying. "nearly a third of Isa’s total savings are in the hands of the 10% wealthiest families". OK, but how much of that is in ISAs over £100k? "ISAS will cost the government a total of £4.3bn a year in lost tax revenue". OK, but that's in total, including all the poorer people, not just the rich. "It is estimated that around half of the £670 million in Lisa tax breaks will go to the top five wealthiest households". Again, that's all of the rich people, not just those with ISAs over £100k. And how does that £670m match up with the £4.3b they were claiming in the previous paragraph? "41 per cent of the £1.3bn of lost tax revenue goes to the wealthiest tenth of households". Oh look, another different yearly figure, but again it's for all rich people, not just those with £100k ISAs. So all that quotation doesn't support your argument at all. How many people have £100k ISAs? If you're right in your assertion that is almost nobody, then the government won't get very much extra revenue from them. Unless you think that there are a handful of people with hundreds of millions stored in ISAs. the 4.3bn is ISA tax. The 1.3bn is savings (interest) and Lisa isnt the same as ISA. So the numbers are coherent albeit not all strictly on topic (bit related to the fact that any peris aimed at encouraging savings will be most used by the richest). It's fairly safe to say the richest third have 100k at least on their ISAs. Anyone with a half decent advisor would maximise tax planning opportunities especially the safe ones like an ISA. So 1.4bn to the top ten wealthiest in ISA tax allowance alone. Oh look, someone that knows what they're talking about. Neatly summarised, thanks. So what the numbers say is that quite a lot of people have ISAs over £100k, and that (obviously) those people are all rich, and therefore we can tax them and get a lot of money. So it isn't "almost nobody" that would be affected." So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? | |||
| |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed?" Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. | |||
"But why should I be taxed on my ISA savings when you pension is tax free. I don't have pension just ISA savings." why not use a pension then ? | |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. " saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. | |||
"But why should I be taxed on my ISA savings when you pension is tax free. I don't have pension just ISA savings.why not use a pension then ? " As I had never got round to it as self employed. Also if you have a pension when you pass away your partner will get a small pension. When they pass away the pension provider keeps most if not all of the pot. With stocks and shares it comes back into the estate to leave to others. | |||
"But why should I be taxed on my ISA savings when you pension is tax free. I don't have pension just ISA savings.why not use a pension then ? As I had never got round to it as self employed. Also if you have a pension when you pass away your partner will get a small pension. When they pass away the pension provider keeps most if not all of the pot. With stocks and shares it comes back into the estate to leave to others." you're confusing pension savings with an annuity. Not only do you get all your pension pot back if you die (well yet estate) it's IHT free. Not advice: but I'd research if putting part of the ISA into a pension makes sense. May be worth taking to a financial advisor especially if you have 100k of ISA. | |||
"But why should I be taxed on my ISA savings when you pension is tax free. I don't have pension just ISA savings.why not use a pension then ? As I had never got round to it as self employed. Also if you have a pension when you pass away your partner will get a small pension. When they pass away the pension provider keeps most if not all of the pot. With stocks and shares it comes back into the estate to leave to others.you're confusing pension savings with an annuity. Not only do you get all your pension pot back if you die (well yet estate) it's IHT free. Not advice: but I'd research if putting part of the ISA into a pension makes sense. May be worth taking to a financial advisor especially if you have 100k of ISA. " I will as looking to add 20k a year now. I'll ask both advisors I have. Did think like my dad's pension with Britich Gas when he went mum only got 66% of the month pension. When she past the pension paid out next to nothing. So was looking at getting up to 500k in ISA @ 5% so 25k a year in come and a pot I can dip in to if needed. Wife has about 200k in pension 1 and 100k in NHS pension But would not class us as rich still have a mortgage and work as a self employed electrician. So working class just worked hard. Have all was believed there are 24 hours in A day work them all if need be. | |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. " I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. | |||
"But why should I be taxed on my ISA savings when you pension is tax free. I don't have pension just ISA savings.why not use a pension then ? As I had never got round to it as self employed. Also if you have a pension when you pass away your partner will get a small pension. When they pass away the pension provider keeps most if not all of the pot. With stocks and shares it comes back into the estate to leave to others.you're confusing pension savings with an annuity. Not only do you get all your pension pot back if you die (well yet estate) it's IHT free. Not advice: but I'd research if putting part of the ISA into a pension makes sense. May be worth taking to a financial advisor especially if you have 100k of ISA. I will as looking to add 20k a year now. I'll ask both advisors I have. Did think like my dad's pension with Britich Gas when he went mum only got 66% of the month pension. When she past the pension paid out next to nothing. So was looking at getting up to 500k in ISA @ 5% so 25k a year in come and a pot I can dip in to if needed. Wife has about 200k in pension 1 and 100k in NHS pension But would not class us as rich still have a mortgage and work as a self employed electrician. So working class just worked hard. Have all was believed there are 24 hours in A day work them all if need be. " get advice ! Kinda suprised they have addressed this. I understand the confusion. We call money being paid by scheme s pension (probsbly a defined benefits scheme) as well as the savings side. Your advisor should explain all this to you ... Part of their role is education. If not, move ! (Imo) you shouldn't be needing to ask! | |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. " No, my "position" has not changed. Please re-read my first post. I said that £100k is more than most people will ever achieve and so a higher figure is no incentive and that the rich do not need an incentive, nor should they avoid taxation. The figures that I quoted demonstrate this. I can only keep referring you back to what I have said on multiple occasions. Pensions benefit society and there are valid reasons for Government to forgo tax revenue to encourage them. The benefit to society is achieved by not being able to access it until you retire. ISA investments benefit individuals. High levels of savings (£100k+) are predominantly held by those with high incomes and wealth so benefit them disproportionately. They benefit the individual far more than society. There is therefore limited reason for the state to forgo revenue to encourage this. Does that make sense to you when applied to the majority of people rather than the position that you have chosen? Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? | |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. " why devalue saving ? I'm arguing that the tax relief is better being used elsewhere to increase the value of savings. Because I'm yet to be convinced anyone would not save because they may hit £100k in 25 years. There are a shortage of advisors. I'd have thought if you had 100k saved you'd get interest. Imo ST interest rates will have little long term impact. Some stocks will fall. Others may gain favour. Suitable diversification will ride it out. We focus too much on the waves, just because they are topical.  | |||
| |||
"I suspect some answers are already on here but not sure I understand correctly so will just ask simple questions for simple answers If tax was introduced to ISA for £100k and above How many would be affected How much revenue would be raised Is there any downside to doing this." based on the thread and my memory 1.6m £1.4bn plus. Some feel it may put off those who are saving. (Couldn't tell you why. Afaik there isn't an extra tax being proposed for breaking the limit) | |||
"I suspect some answers are already on here but not sure I understand correctly so will just ask simple questions for simple answers If tax was introduced to ISA for £100k and above How many would be affected How much revenue would be raised Is there any downside to doing this.based on the thread and my memory 1.6m £1.4bn plus. Some feel it may put off those who are saving. (Couldn't tell you why. Afaik there isn't an extra tax being proposed for breaking the limit) " I should add there's possibly admin costs in managing the cap. Imo you are better of limiting contributions to say £80k than trying to manage a moving target. | |||
| |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. No, my "position" has not changed. Please re-read my first post. I said that £100k is more than most people will ever achieve and so a higher figure is no incentive and that the rich do not need an incentive, nor should they avoid taxation. The figures that I quoted demonstrate this. I can only keep referring you back to what I have said on multiple occasions. Pensions benefit society and there are valid reasons for Government to forgo tax revenue to encourage them. The benefit to society is achieved by not being able to access it until you retire. ISA investments benefit individuals. High levels of savings (£100k+) are predominantly held by those with high incomes and wealth so benefit them disproportionately. They benefit the individual far more than society. There is therefore limited reason for the state to forgo revenue to encourage this. Does that make sense to you when applied to the majority of people rather than the position that you have chosen? Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save?" So how dose a pension help society you save in to a pension tax free. How dose that help anyone else apart from the person how's pension it is. | |||
" Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save?" You are asking why, rather than questioning if it is necessary. Dr's Teachers, Nurses are all paid though GDP, if our GDP was better, taxing an ISA would not be a thought on post-it note. If taxes were needed to be raised on the rich I have given examples of goods and services only they can access. When you are looking to increase revenue and save £1.6bn you have to look at implication. This being 'the rich' taking money out completely, moving it, or buying goods and services only 'they' can access. An example happened post Brexit with the professional flight. Dr's, Architects, Lawers Teachers left the UK for America, Australia, Ireland, EU etc. What happens when the tax on savings combines into that of an ISA. At present tax is paid after £1000 interest earned. However, I know I don't have one savings account, and I don't have one ISA, I have several at different rates with different maturity dates, along with share dividends that I wouldn't have a clue how to include or where they cut off in the calender year. Saving then, (like switching your bank) becomes complicated, meaning unnecessary fines, meaning why would people bother unless it is in small sums - when those on low and middle incomes need to save more than they are now. | |||
" Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? You are asking why, rather than questioning if it is necessary. Dr's Teachers, Nurses are all paid though GDP, if our GDP was better, taxing an ISA would not be a thought on post-it note. If taxes were needed to be raised on the rich I have given examples of goods and services only they can access. When you are looking to increase revenue and save £1.6bn you have to look at implication. This being 'the rich' taking money out completely, moving it, or buying goods and services only 'they' can access. An example happened post Brexit with the professional flight. Dr's, Architects, Lawers Teachers left the UK for America, Australia, Ireland, EU etc. What happens when the tax on savings combines into that of an ISA. At present tax is paid after £1000 interest earned. However, I know I don't have one savings account, and I don't have one ISA, I have several at different rates with different maturity dates, along with share dividends that I wouldn't have a clue how to include or where they cut off in the calender year. Saving then, (like switching your bank) becomes complicated, meaning unnecessary fines, meaning why would people bother unless it is in small sums - when those on low and middle incomes need to save more than they are now." sure, more gdp would be great. Removing the cap won't affect GDP tho ... So I don't see the relevance. Especially as I very much doubt that people will emigrate because the cant have quite as much saved tax free. You're now adding hypotheticals in. And somehow combining a limit on capital to a interest cap (should that be removed ?) Would you be close to £1000 interest / £100k isa under your combined example ? I suspect many who are in this position are in self assessment territory. I doubt many on low income are getting close to your scenario. | |||
"I suspect some answers are already on here but not sure I understand correctly so will just ask simple questions for simple answers If tax was introduced to ISA for £100k and above How many would be affected How much revenue would be raised Is there any downside to doing this.based on the thread and my memory 1.6m £1.4bn plus. Some feel it may put off those who are saving. (Couldn't tell you why. Afaik there isn't an extra tax being proposed for breaking the limit) " Thank you  | |||
" sure, more gdp would be great. Removing the cap won't affect GDP tho ... So I don't see the relevance. Especially as I very much doubt that people will emigrate because the cant have quite as much saved tax free. You're now adding hypotheticals in. And somehow combining a limit on capital to a interest cap (should that be removed ?) Would you be close to £1000 interest / £100k isa under your combined example ? I suspect many who are in this position are in self assessment territory. I doubt many on low income are getting close to your scenario. " I never said they would emigrate, I said they would move their money - art, houses, jewellery are all options that hold wealth not readily accessible to low/mid incomes. The example of professional flight was to emphasise that when the UK chooses policy seen as unsuitable, there are other options available Much as it's good talking about finances - I don't really want to talk about my finances  | |||
" Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? You are asking why, rather than questioning if it is necessary. Dr's Teachers, Nurses are all paid though GDP, if our GDP was better, taxing an ISA would not be a thought on post-it note. If taxes were needed to be raised on the rich I have given examples of goods and services only they can access. When you are looking to increase revenue and save £1.6bn you have to look at implication. This being 'the rich' taking money out completely, moving it, or buying goods and services only 'they' can access. An example happened post Brexit with the professional flight. Dr's, Architects, Lawers Teachers left the UK for America, Australia, Ireland, EU etc. What happens when the tax on savings combines into that of an ISA. At present tax is paid after £1000 interest earned. However, I know I don't have one savings account, and I don't have one ISA, I have several at different rates with different maturity dates, along with share dividends that I wouldn't have a clue how to include or where they cut off in the calender year. Saving then, (like switching your bank) becomes complicated, meaning unnecessary fines, meaning why would people bother unless it is in small sums - when those on low and middle incomes need to save more than they are now." It is rich people who have over £100k in ISAs. So, yes, I am asking why rich people should receive a tax incentive to save their spare money? Why should they be rewarded for saving their excess wealth? At least you have actually accepted the data that it is the rich with ISAs of £100k and higher. Your proposal is to pick and choose "rich people's" items. You will be penalising specific companies and businesses and some how have different taxes for individual items. A "normal" car and a "rich" persons car. A "normal" watch and a "rich" persons car. That is administrative madness. Professionals did not leave the UK after Brexit because of taxation. It's not an "example" of anything to do with tax or wealth. If I have it right, it will cost 1.6m rich people £875 each to raise £1.4bn to benefit the UK Exchequer. Do you think that will deter them from saving or make them leave the UK? Saving is as complicated as you want to make it and it is your responsibility to pay your taxes. ISAs are nothing to do with other savings. That is the point. the proposal would still allow you to save £100k in an ISA. That is more than 98% of the population will ever save. It sounds like you are confused about savings and pensions. It's very difficult to understand what your objections are because it all sounds like it is tied to your complex personal finances and not relevant to the general principle of the proposal from the the Resolution Foundation (not Aberdeen Asset Management). In fact, that £1.4bn revenue increase could be used to educate the poorest about saving and accessing the Help to Save scheme. The rich won't miss it and the poorest will directly benefit from it. | |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. No, my "position" has not changed. Please re-read my first post. I said that £100k is more than most people will ever achieve and so a higher figure is no incentive and that the rich do not need an incentive, nor should they avoid taxation. The figures that I quoted demonstrate this. I can only keep referring you back to what I have said on multiple occasions. Pensions benefit society and there are valid reasons for Government to forgo tax revenue to encourage them. The benefit to society is achieved by not being able to access it until you retire. ISA investments benefit individuals. High levels of savings (£100k+) are predominantly held by those with high incomes and wealth so benefit them disproportionately. They benefit the individual far more than society. There is therefore limited reason for the state to forgo revenue to encourage this. Does that make sense to you when applied to the majority of people rather than the position that you have chosen? Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? So how dose a pension help society you save in to a pension tax free. How dose that help anyone else apart from the person how's pension it is." Because we have an aging demographic whereby there are more economically inactive old people than working people to support the economy. This is getting worse as birth rates continue to be below the level of replacement. Retired people will need to have an income and medical care for many years. The state cannot afford to pay this with a falling tax intake from a falling population. So, it is in the countries interest for pensions savings to be as strongly encouraged as is possible. I'd you have no income in your old age you will fall back on the state. If you "only" have £100k of discretionary savings then you have to buy a second hand Rolls Royce instead of a new one. | |||
" Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? You are asking why, rather than questioning if it is necessary. Dr's Teachers, Nurses are all paid though GDP, if our GDP was better, taxing an ISA would not be a thought on post-it note. If taxes were needed to be raised on the rich I have given examples of goods and services only they can access. When you are looking to increase revenue and save £1.6bn you have to look at implication. This being 'the rich' taking money out completely, moving it, or buying goods and services only 'they' can access. An example happened post Brexit with the professional flight. Dr's, Architects, Lawers Teachers left the UK for America, Australia, Ireland, EU etc. What happens when the tax on savings combines into that of an ISA. At present tax is paid after £1000 interest earned. However, I know I don't have one savings account, and I don't have one ISA, I have several at different rates with different maturity dates, along with share dividends that I wouldn't have a clue how to include or where they cut off in the calender year. Saving then, (like switching your bank) becomes complicated, meaning unnecessary fines, meaning why would people bother unless it is in small sums - when those on low and middle incomes need to save more than they are now. It is rich people who have over £100k in ISAs. So, yes, I am asking why rich people should receive a tax incentive to save their spare money? Why should they be rewarded for saving their excess wealth? At least you have actually accepted the data that it is the rich with ISAs of £100k and higher. Your proposal is to pick and choose "rich people's" items. You will be penalising specific companies and businesses and some how have different taxes for individual items. A "normal" car and a "rich" persons car. A "normal" watch and a "rich" persons car. That is administrative madness. Professionals did not leave the UK after Brexit because of taxation. It's not an "example" of anything to do with tax or wealth. If I have it right, it will cost 1.6m rich people £875 each to raise £1.4bn to benefit the UK Exchequer. Do you think that will deter them from saving or make them leave the UK? Saving is as complicated as you want to make it and it is your responsibility to pay your taxes. ISAs are nothing to do with other savings. That is the point. the proposal would still allow you to save £100k in an ISA. That is more than 98% of the population will ever save. It sounds like you are confused about savings and pensions. It's very difficult to understand what your objections are because it all sounds like it is tied to your complex personal finances and not relevant to the general principle of the proposal from the the Resolution Foundation (not Aberdeen Asset Management). In fact, that £1.4bn revenue increase could be used to educate the poorest about saving and accessing the Help to Save scheme. The rich won't miss it and the poorest will directly benefit from it." I'm going to give myself a pat on the back for creating the longest quoting thread on fab. (  )
I answer your points from the bottom and went up...
If you look at the report from the Foundation it has Aberdeen it the top left. The Foundation advise any sponsors are shown at the top of their reports.
It is not as you say, that £100k is more than 98% will ever save. It is not that people cannot save, it is the fact people aren't saving. Everyone would be classed "rich" if they bothered to save as I've shown - £250pm over 25yrs = £112k.
I never said professionals left due to taxation.
You are happy to class £100k of accumulated savings as rich but you don't see discretionary purchases of a £150k Lamborghini, a £40k watch, a £50k handbag as a sign of wealth. You need a rethink about that instead of needless attacking.
I haven't ever said rich people don't have ISA's. Of course they do. I have said the idea of having £100k of accumulated wealth doesn't make you rich (see above).
It's not like I've been replying in disappearing ink. I've been saying the same thing over and over. | |||
"If I have it right, it will cost 1.6m rich people £875 each to raise £1.4bn to benefit the UK Exchequer." 1.6m = 2.3% of the UK population = "almost nobody". | |||
" Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? You are asking why, rather than questioning if it is necessary. Dr's Teachers, Nurses are all paid though GDP, if our GDP was better, taxing an ISA would not be a thought on post-it note. If taxes were needed to be raised on the rich I have given examples of goods and services only they can access. When you are looking to increase revenue and save £1.6bn you have to look at implication. This being 'the rich' taking money out completely, moving it, or buying goods and services only 'they' can access. An example happened post Brexit with the professional flight. Dr's, Architects, Lawers Teachers left the UK for America, Australia, Ireland, EU etc. What happens when the tax on savings combines into that of an ISA. At present tax is paid after £1000 interest earned. However, I know I don't have one savings account, and I don't have one ISA, I have several at different rates with different maturity dates, along with share dividends that I wouldn't have a clue how to include or where they cut off in the calender year. Saving then, (like switching your bank) becomes complicated, meaning unnecessary fines, meaning why would people bother unless it is in small sums - when those on low and middle incomes need to save more than they are now. It is rich people who have over £100k in ISAs. So, yes, I am asking why rich people should receive a tax incentive to save their spare money? Why should they be rewarded for saving their excess wealth? At least you have actually accepted the data that it is the rich with ISAs of £100k and higher. Your proposal is to pick and choose "rich people's" items. You will be penalising specific companies and businesses and some how have different taxes for individual items. A "normal" car and a "rich" persons car. A "normal" watch and a "rich" persons car. That is administrative madness. Professionals did not leave the UK after Brexit because of taxation. It's not an "example" of anything to do with tax or wealth. If I have it right, it will cost 1.6m rich people £875 each to raise £1.4bn to benefit the UK Exchequer. Do you think that will deter them from saving or make them leave the UK? Saving is as complicated as you want to make it and it is your responsibility to pay your taxes. ISAs are nothing to do with other savings. That is the point. the proposal would still allow you to save £100k in an ISA. That is more than 98% of the population will ever save. It sounds like you are confused about savings and pensions. It's very difficult to understand what your objections are because it all sounds like it is tied to your complex personal finances and not relevant to the general principle of the proposal from the the Resolution Foundation (not Aberdeen Asset Management). In fact, that £1.4bn revenue increase could be used to educate the poorest about saving and accessing the Help to Save scheme. The rich won't miss it and the poorest will directly benefit from it. I'm going to give myself a pat on the back for creating the longest quoting thread on fab. ( )
I answer your points from the bottom and went up...
If you look at the report from the Foundation it has Aberdeen it the top left. The Foundation advise any sponsors are shown at the top of their reports.
It is not as you say, that £100k is more than 98% will ever save. It is not that people cannot save, it is the fact people aren't saving. Everyone would be classed "rich" if they bothered to save as I've shown - £250pm over 25yrs = £112k.
I never said professionals left due to taxation.
You are happy to class £100k of accumulated savings as rich but you don't see discretionary purchases of a £150k Lamborghini, a £40k watch, a £50k handbag as a sign of wealth. You need a rethink about that instead of needless attacking.
I haven't ever said rich people don't have ISA's. Of course they do. I have said the idea of having £100k of accumulated wealth doesn't make you rich (see above).
It's not like I've been replying in disappearing ink. I've been saying the same thing over and over. ""abrdn Financial Fairness Trust supports work to tackle financial problems and improve living standards for people on low-to-middle incomes in the UK. It is an independent charitable trust registered in Scotland funding research, policy work and related campaigning activities. Our funds are provided by unclaimed assets from Standard Life’s demutualisation, which were donated in 2017. The company also supports us through in-kind donations of office space and professional support. Decisions about our strategy and what we fund are made by our independent board of trustees. One of our twelve trustees is appointed by, and is an employee of, abrdn. Whilst we are a subsidiary of the company, it respects our right to create our own strategy and to speak out about the social issues we are seeking to address." Regardless, abrdn sells ISAs as well as pensions and all other investments so if they did try to influence the study it wouldn't make any material difference to them as a business. You have a long thread, I am afraid, because you seem point blank unable or unwilling, to accept any information being made available to you. It is, as I say, that 98% of people do not save more than £100k in an ISA. It is, as I say, the wealthiest that have this much saved in ISAs. You don't seem to be able to accept that, and I do not understand why. Can you explain where you have data to contradict that presented? £250/month is £3000/year. That is 29% of the average disposable income. "Disposable income is the amount of money that households have available for spending and saving after direct taxes, such as Income Tax, National Insurance and Council Tax, have been accounted for." That would be people saving almost a third of their money over their lifetimes. If they managed to do this the proposal would still mean that this, very high, level of saving, which the majority do not attain, would still be tax free. 20% of the population have negative disposable income. They fall in to debt or rely on the state. People save more as they get richer. Only the wealthiest manage to save over £100k in their lifetimes in an ISA. This does not mean £100k in total. This means £100k in an ISA. Most people will pay into a pension first. For whatever reason you have chosen not to. So more than £100k of accumulated wealth in an ISA is achieved by only 2% of the population. The rich ones according to the data. You seem to be unaware that picking individual items or brands to define as "luxuries" and tax at a different rate to others is a bureaucratic and administrative and legal minefield. Also, doing this will absolutely guarantee that the wealthy will purchase these items abroad and only the less well off would ever pay the supertax on them if they ever save up enough. The rich do not need a tax incentive to invest money that they do not need to spend on living expenses. With existing incentives 98% do not save £100k in their lifetimes in an ISA so an incentive to save more than that is meaningless. Does that make sense to you? Over many years the ISA scheme has failed to encourage anyone except the wealthy to save more than £100k tax free in their lifetimes. Nothing that you have written contradicts this so it is difficult to understand what you believe you are arguing for. We are going around in a circle for the third or fourth time now. Unless you can find some data to actually back your assertions and contradict the information from the Resolution Foundation or can explain what you actually mean, this is fairly pointless. | |||
"If I have it right, it will cost 1.6m rich people £875 each to raise £1.4bn to benefit the UK Exchequer. 1.6m = 2.3% of the UK population = "almost nobody"." Yes, pedant. 2.3% or 1.6m is "almost nobody" when compared to 97.7% and 69m. That's how percentages work. They are a relative measure. | |||
"There's headlines from the Resolution Foundation that have bugged me recently as ideas usually turn into policy. The idea of capping and taxing ISA's beyond £100k as they view it as rich or a rich only activity. If there's a thought about taxing "rich" people for years, likely decades of saving, why aren't taxes increased on goods or services directly used by 'the rich' in the first instance. Added VAT on say Rolex, Patek Philippe, first class flights, private jets, luxury cars and clothes, caviar. At least everyone has the option to save, whereas very few have the option of a Cartier sunglasses or a Lamborghini. There seems a world of difference in saving for retirement or a rainy day and being income rich. Social care is £25k per yr right now, a new small electric car is £25k, used maybe £10k, so £100k is not going to stretch that far. If a cap is put on peoples ability to save, if anything it will act as a disincentive to save, neither 'the rich' or low incomes will bother, as they are now - either due to low rates, consumption habits, knowledge or forward planning. " You do understand that the study does not say that people with £100k in total savings are "rich". The study says that the vast majority of people with over £100k of savings just in an ISA (amongst all of their other assets) are, in fact, rich people. They know this because they have measured it. | |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. No, my "position" has not changed. Please re-read my first post. I said that £100k is more than most people will ever achieve and so a higher figure is no incentive and that the rich do not need an incentive, nor should they avoid taxation. The figures that I quoted demonstrate this. I can only keep referring you back to what I have said on multiple occasions. Pensions benefit society and there are valid reasons for Government to forgo tax revenue to encourage them. The benefit to society is achieved by not being able to access it until you retire. ISA investments benefit individuals. High levels of savings (£100k+) are predominantly held by those with high incomes and wealth so benefit them disproportionately. They benefit the individual far more than society. There is therefore limited reason for the state to forgo revenue to encourage this. Does that make sense to you when applied to the majority of people rather than the position that you have chosen? Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? So how dose a pension help society you save in to a pension tax free. How dose that help anyone else apart from the person how's pension it is. Because we have an aging demographic whereby there are more economically inactive old people than working people to support the economy. This is getting worse as birth rates continue to be below the level of replacement. Retired people will need to have an income and medical care for many years. The state cannot afford to pay this with a falling tax intake from a falling population. So, it is in the countries interest for pensions savings to be as strongly encouraged as is possible. I'd you have no income in your old age you will fall back on the state. If you "only" have £100k of discretionary savings then you have to buy a second hand Rolls Royce instead of a new one." But if you chose to have the same size pot in stoks and shears ISA as you woul in a pension what is the difference to society you would still take about 5% as an income to get you through old age. | |||
"There's headlines from the Resolution Foundation that have bugged me recently as ideas usually turn into policy. The idea of capping and taxing ISA's beyond £100k as they view it as rich or a rich only activity. If there's a thought about taxing "rich" people for years, likely decades of saving, why aren't taxes increased on goods or services directly used by 'the rich' in the first instance. Added VAT on say Rolex, Patek Philippe, first class flights, private jets, luxury cars and clothes, caviar. At least everyone has the option to save, whereas very few have the option of a Cartier sunglasses or a Lamborghini. There seems a world of difference in saving for retirement or a rainy day and being income rich. Social care is £25k per yr right now, a new small electric car is £25k, used maybe £10k, so £100k is not going to stretch that far. If a cap is put on peoples ability to save, if anything it will act as a disincentive to save, neither 'the rich' or low incomes will bother, as they are now - either due to low rates, consumption habits, knowledge or forward planning. You do understand that the study does not say that people with £100k in total savings are "rich". The study says that the vast majority of people with over £100k of savings just in an ISA (amongst all of their other assets) are, in fact, rich people. They know this because they have measured it." JJeeee ee eeez! In all the tax the rich replies this looks like the most direct answer, (though I did say I was no finance guru) and looking back through all the tennis, it looks like I overlooked Hovis Waffles reply "the 4.3bn is ISA tax. The 1.3bn is savings (interest) and Lisa isnt the same as ISA. So the numbers are coherent albeit not all strictly on topic (bit related to the fact that any peris aimed at encouraging savings will be most used by the richest). It's fairly safe to say the riches third have 100k at least on their ISAs. ... So 1.4bn to the top ten wealthiest in ISA tax allowance alone. " I don't want to ask another question really  | |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. No, my "position" has not changed. Please re-read my first post. I said that £100k is more than most people will ever achieve and so a higher figure is no incentive and that the rich do not need an incentive, nor should they avoid taxation. The figures that I quoted demonstrate this. I can only keep referring you back to what I have said on multiple occasions. Pensions benefit society and there are valid reasons for Government to forgo tax revenue to encourage them. The benefit to society is achieved by not being able to access it until you retire. ISA investments benefit individuals. High levels of savings (£100k+) are predominantly held by those with high incomes and wealth so benefit them disproportionately. They benefit the individual far more than society. There is therefore limited reason for the state to forgo revenue to encourage this. Does that make sense to you when applied to the majority of people rather than the position that you have chosen? Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? So how dose a pension help society you save in to a pension tax free. How dose that help anyone else apart from the person how's pension it is. Because we have an aging demographic whereby there are more economically inactive old people than working people to support the economy. This is getting worse as birth rates continue to be below the level of replacement. Retired people will need to have an income and medical care for many years. The state cannot afford to pay this with a falling tax intake from a falling population. So, it is in the countries interest for pensions savings to be as strongly encouraged as is possible. I'd you have no income in your old age you will fall back on the state. If you "only" have £100k of discretionary savings then you have to buy a second hand Rolls Royce instead of a new one. But if you chose to have the same size pot in stoks and shears ISA as you woul in a pension what is the difference to society you would still take about 5% as an income to get you through old age." Because they are not giving you a choice to do as you wish with the money. A pension scheme is for a pension, not a yacht should you happen to fancy it. If you want a pension, get a pension. | |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. No, my "position" has not changed. Please re-read my first post. I said that £100k is more than most people will ever achieve and so a higher figure is no incentive and that the rich do not need an incentive, nor should they avoid taxation. The figures that I quoted demonstrate this. I can only keep referring you back to what I have said on multiple occasions. Pensions benefit society and there are valid reasons for Government to forgo tax revenue to encourage them. The benefit to society is achieved by not being able to access it until you retire. ISA investments benefit individuals. High levels of savings (£100k+) are predominantly held by those with high incomes and wealth so benefit them disproportionately. They benefit the individual far more than society. There is therefore limited reason for the state to forgo revenue to encourage this. Does that make sense to you when applied to the majority of people rather than the position that you have chosen? Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? So how dose a pension help society you save in to a pension tax free. How dose that help anyone else apart from the person how's pension it is. Because we have an aging demographic whereby there are more economically inactive old people than working people to support the economy. This is getting worse as birth rates continue to be below the level of replacement. Retired people will need to have an income and medical care for many years. The state cannot afford to pay this with a falling tax intake from a falling population. So, it is in the countries interest for pensions savings to be as strongly encouraged as is possible. I'd you have no income in your old age you will fall back on the state. If you "only" have £100k of discretionary savings then you have to buy a second hand Rolls Royce instead of a new one. But if you chose to have the same size pot in stoks and shears ISA as you woul in a pension what is the difference to society you would still take about 5% as an income to get you through old age. Because they are not giving you a choice to do as you wish with the money. A pension scheme is for a pension, not a yacht should you happen to fancy it. If you want a pension, get a pension." And if I get a pension and get diagnosed with a terminal illness can I draw it all out and go travelling or enjoy giving it away. | |||
| |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. No, my "position" has not changed. Please re-read my first post. I said that £100k is more than most people will ever achieve and so a higher figure is no incentive and that the rich do not need an incentive, nor should they avoid taxation. The figures that I quoted demonstrate this. I can only keep referring you back to what I have said on multiple occasions. Pensions benefit society and there are valid reasons for Government to forgo tax revenue to encourage them. The benefit to society is achieved by not being able to access it until you retire. ISA investments benefit individuals. High levels of savings (£100k+) are predominantly held by those with high incomes and wealth so benefit them disproportionately. They benefit the individual far more than society. There is therefore limited reason for the state to forgo revenue to encourage this. Does that make sense to you when applied to the majority of people rather than the position that you have chosen? Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? So how dose a pension help society you save in to a pension tax free. How dose that help anyone else apart from the person how's pension it is. Because we have an aging demographic whereby there are more economically inactive old people than working people to support the economy. This is getting worse as birth rates continue to be below the level of replacement. Retired people will need to have an income and medical care for many years. The state cannot afford to pay this with a falling tax intake from a falling population. So, it is in the countries interest for pensions savings to be as strongly encouraged as is possible. I'd you have no income in your old age you will fall back on the state. If you "only" have £100k of discretionary savings then you have to buy a second hand Rolls Royce instead of a new one. But if you chose to have the same size pot in stoks and shears ISA as you woul in a pension what is the difference to society you would still take about 5% as an income to get you through old age. Because they are not giving you a choice to do as you wish with the money. A pension scheme is for a pension, not a yacht should you happen to fancy it. If you want a pension, get a pension. And if I get a pension and get diagnosed with a terminal illness can I draw it all out and go travelling or enjoy giving it away." You can draw down 25% tax free and the rest taxed as income. You can look this up. | |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. No, my "position" has not changed. Please re-read my first post. I said that £100k is more than most people will ever achieve and so a higher figure is no incentive and that the rich do not need an incentive, nor should they avoid taxation. The figures that I quoted demonstrate this. I can only keep referring you back to what I have said on multiple occasions. Pensions benefit society and there are valid reasons for Government to forgo tax revenue to encourage them. The benefit to society is achieved by not being able to access it until you retire. ISA investments benefit individuals. High levels of savings (£100k+) are predominantly held by those with high incomes and wealth so benefit them disproportionately. They benefit the individual far more than society. There is therefore limited reason for the state to forgo revenue to encourage this. Does that make sense to you when applied to the majority of people rather than the position that you have chosen? Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? So how dose a pension help society you save in to a pension tax free. How dose that help anyone else apart from the person how's pension it is. Because we have an aging demographic whereby there are more economically inactive old people than working people to support the economy. This is getting worse as birth rates continue to be below the level of replacement. Retired people will need to have an income and medical care for many years. The state cannot afford to pay this with a falling tax intake from a falling population. So, it is in the countries interest for pensions savings to be as strongly encouraged as is possible. I'd you have no income in your old age you will fall back on the state. If you "only" have £100k of discretionary savings then you have to buy a second hand Rolls Royce instead of a new one. But if you chose to have the same size pot in stoks and shears ISA as you woul in a pension what is the difference to society you would still take about 5% as an income to get you through old age. Because they are not giving you a choice to do as you wish with the money. But it's my fucking money why can't I do what I want with it. A pension scheme is for a pension, not a yacht should you happen to fancy it. If you want a pension, get a pension. And if I get a pension and get diagnosed with a terminal illness can I draw it all out and go travelling or enjoy giving it away. You can draw down 25% tax free and the rest taxed as income. You can look this up." Yer you can draw down 3 times once over the age of the pension. But if you not at 55 and have money in just a pension and are self employed and sick your left high and dry. Where if you put 12k a year in an ISA and get sick you can ues it at any time. And as its in an ISA your less likely to just dip in to it. | |||
" You can draw down 25% tax free and the rest taxed as income. You can look this up. Yer you can draw down 3 times once over the age of the pension. But if you not at 55 and have money in just a pension and are self employed and sick your left high and dry. Where if you put 12k a year in an ISA and get sick you can ues it at any time. And as its in an ISA your less likely to just dip in to it. " Those were my thoughts, along with this idea of a tax applying on £100k of savings as only the rich can achieve that. | |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. No, my "position" has not changed. Please re-read my first post. I said that £100k is more than most people will ever achieve and so a higher figure is no incentive and that the rich do not need an incentive, nor should they avoid taxation. The figures that I quoted demonstrate this. I can only keep referring you back to what I have said on multiple occasions. Pensions benefit society and there are valid reasons for Government to forgo tax revenue to encourage them. The benefit to society is achieved by not being able to access it until you retire. ISA investments benefit individuals. High levels of savings (£100k+) are predominantly held by those with high incomes and wealth so benefit them disproportionately. They benefit the individual far more than society. There is therefore limited reason for the state to forgo revenue to encourage this. Does that make sense to you when applied to the majority of people rather than the position that you have chosen? Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? So how dose a pension help society you save in to a pension tax free. How dose that help anyone else apart from the person how's pension it is. Because we have an aging demographic whereby there are more economically inactive old people than working people to support the economy. This is getting worse as birth rates continue to be below the level of replacement. Retired people will need to have an income and medical care for many years. The state cannot afford to pay this with a falling tax intake from a falling population. So, it is in the countries interest for pensions savings to be as strongly encouraged as is possible. I'd you have no income in your old age you will fall back on the state. If you "only" have £100k of discretionary savings then you have to buy a second hand Rolls Royce instead of a new one. But if you chose to have the same size pot in stoks and shears ISA as you woul in a pension what is the difference to society you would still take about 5% as an income to get you through old age. Because they are not giving you a choice to do as you wish with the money. But it's my fucking money why can't I do what I want with it. A pension scheme is for a pension, not a yacht should you happen to fancy it. If you want a pension, get a pension. And if I get a pension and get diagnosed with a terminal illness can I draw it all out and go travelling or enjoy giving it away. You can draw down 25% tax free and the rest taxed as income. You can look this up. Yer you can draw down 3 times once over the age of the pension. But if you not at 55 and have money in just a pension and are self employed and sick your left high and dry. Where if you put 12k a year in an ISA and get sick you can ues it at any time. And as its in an ISA your less likely to just dip in to it. " Then you have up to £100k to dip into tax free. Where's the problem? | |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. No, my "position" has not changed. Please re-read my first post. I said that £100k is more than most people will ever achieve and so a higher figure is no incentive and that the rich do not need an incentive, nor should they avoid taxation. The figures that I quoted demonstrate this. I can only keep referring you back to what I have said on multiple occasions. Pensions benefit society and there are valid reasons for Government to forgo tax revenue to encourage them. The benefit to society is achieved by not being able to access it until you retire. ISA investments benefit individuals. High levels of savings (£100k+) are predominantly held by those with high incomes and wealth so benefit them disproportionately. They benefit the individual far more than society. There is therefore limited reason for the state to forgo revenue to encourage this. Does that make sense to you when applied to the majority of people rather than the position that you have chosen? Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? So how dose a pension help society you save in to a pension tax free. How dose that help anyone else apart from the person how's pension it is. Because we have an aging demographic whereby there are more economically inactive old people than working people to support the economy. This is getting worse as birth rates continue to be below the level of replacement. Retired people will need to have an income and medical care for many years. The state cannot afford to pay this with a falling tax intake from a falling population. So, it is in the countries interest for pensions savings to be as strongly encouraged as is possible. I'd you have no income in your old age you will fall back on the state. If you "only" have £100k of discretionary savings then you have to buy a second hand Rolls Royce instead of a new one. But if you chose to have the same size pot in stoks and shears ISA as you woul in a pension what is the difference to society you would still take about 5% as an income to get you through old age. Because they are not giving you a choice to do as you wish with the money. But it's my fucking money why can't I do what I want with it. A pension scheme is for a pension, not a yacht should you happen to fancy it. If you want a pension, get a pension. And if I get a pension and get diagnosed with a terminal illness can I draw it all out and go travelling or enjoy giving it away. You can draw down 25% tax free and the rest taxed as income. You can look this up. Yer you can draw down 3 times once over the age of the pension. But if you not at 55 and have money in just a pension and are self employed and sick your left high and dry. Where if you put 12k a year in an ISA and get sick you can ues it at any time. And as its in an ISA your less likely to just dip in to it. " this is wrong. You can draw down as often as you want from a pension. I suspect you may be thinking of small pots. Or may just be confused. If you are under 75 and have less than a year to live you can normally access your pot tax free. Also worth noting that your pension pot is IHT free and can be passed to any beneficiary If you die before you are 75 they can draw down tax free. If you are over 75 it's at their marginal tax rate. If you have ill health you can access before 55. Although irrc it's usual tax rules for a pension. Contribution limit is 20k pa for an ISA. £12k is the help to buy ISA. Pls ppl, if you aren't seeking professional advice, do fact check stuff. Fab is not a good source of financial advice !! (Extra caveat: not qualified so don't trust me either !!) | |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. No, my "position" has not changed. Please re-read my first post. I said that £100k is more than most people will ever achieve and so a higher figure is no incentive and that the rich do not need an incentive, nor should they avoid taxation. The figures that I quoted demonstrate this. I can only keep referring you back to what I have said on multiple occasions. Pensions benefit society and there are valid reasons for Government to forgo tax revenue to encourage them. The benefit to society is achieved by not being able to access it until you retire. ISA investments benefit individuals. High levels of savings (£100k+) are predominantly held by those with high incomes and wealth so benefit them disproportionately. They benefit the individual far more than society. There is therefore limited reason for the state to forgo revenue to encourage this. Does that make sense to you when applied to the majority of people rather than the position that you have chosen? Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? So how dose a pension help society you save in to a pension tax free. How dose that help anyone else apart from the person how's pension it is. Because we have an aging demographic whereby there are more economically inactive old people than working people to support the economy. This is getting worse as birth rates continue to be below the level of replacement. Retired people will need to have an income and medical care for many years. The state cannot afford to pay this with a falling tax intake from a falling population. So, it is in the countries interest for pensions savings to be as strongly encouraged as is possible. I'd you have no income in your old age you will fall back on the state. If you "only" have £100k of discretionary savings then you have to buy a second hand Rolls Royce instead of a new one. But if you chose to have the same size pot in stoks and shears ISA as you woul in a pension what is the difference to society you would still take about 5% as an income to get you through old age. Because they are not giving you a choice to do as you wish with the money. But it's my fucking money why can't I do what I want with it. A pension scheme is for a pension, not a yacht should you happen to fancy it. If you want a pension, get a pension. And if I get a pension and get diagnosed with a terminal illness can I draw it all out and go travelling or enjoy giving it away. You can draw down 25% tax free and the rest taxed as income. You can look this up. Yer you can draw down 3 times once over the age of the pension. But if you not at 55 and have money in just a pension and are self employed and sick your left high and dry. Where if you put 12k a year in an ISA and get sick you can ues it at any time. And as its in an ISA your less likely to just dip in to it. Then you have up to £100k to dip into tax free. Where's the problem?" As like you know 100k would not last long. And you could have a much larger fund that canot be touched until I'm dead. And would just get added to the estate any way. | |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. No, my "position" has not changed. Please re-read my first post. I said that £100k is more than most people will ever achieve and so a higher figure is no incentive and that the rich do not need an incentive, nor should they avoid taxation. The figures that I quoted demonstrate this. I can only keep referring you back to what I have said on multiple occasions. Pensions benefit society and there are valid reasons for Government to forgo tax revenue to encourage them. The benefit to society is achieved by not being able to access it until you retire. ISA investments benefit individuals. High levels of savings (£100k+) are predominantly held by those with high incomes and wealth so benefit them disproportionately. They benefit the individual far more than society. There is therefore limited reason for the state to forgo revenue to encourage this. Does that make sense to you when applied to the majority of people rather than the position that you have chosen? Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? So how dose a pension help society you save in to a pension tax free. How dose that help anyone else apart from the person how's pension it is. Because we have an aging demographic whereby there are more economically inactive old people than working people to support the economy. This is getting worse as birth rates continue to be below the level of replacement. Retired people will need to have an income and medical care for many years. The state cannot afford to pay this with a falling tax intake from a falling population. So, it is in the countries interest for pensions savings to be as strongly encouraged as is possible. I'd you have no income in your old age you will fall back on the state. If you "only" have £100k of discretionary savings then you have to buy a second hand Rolls Royce instead of a new one. But if you chose to have the same size pot in stoks and shears ISA as you woul in a pension what is the difference to society you would still take about 5% as an income to get you through old age. Because they are not giving you a choice to do as you wish with the money. But it's my fucking money why can't I do what I want with it. A pension scheme is for a pension, not a yacht should you happen to fancy it. If you want a pension, get a pension. And if I get a pension and get diagnosed with a terminal illness can I draw it all out and go travelling or enjoy giving it away. You can draw down 25% tax free and the rest taxed as income. You can look this up. Yer you can draw down 3 times once over the age of the pension. But if you not at 55 and have money in just a pension and are self employed and sick your left high and dry. Where if you put 12k a year in an ISA and get sick you can ues it at any time. And as its in an ISA your less likely to just dip in to it. this is wrong. You can draw down as often as you want from a pension. I suspect you may be thinking of small pots. Or may just be confused. If you are under 75 and have less than a year to live you can normally access your pot tax free. Also worth noting that your pension pot is IHT free and can be passed to any beneficiary If you die before you are 75 they can draw down tax free. If you are over 75 it's at their marginal tax rate. If you have ill health you can access before 55. Although irrc it's usual tax rules for a pension. Contribution limit is 20k pa for an ISA. £12k is the help to buy ISA. Pls ppl, if you aren't seeking professional advice, do fact check stuff. Fab is not a good source of financial advice !! (Extra caveat: not qualified so don't trust me either !!)" And as said if you are 40 and get ill you can access ? I have dipped in to mine several times and will do again soon to pay for an operation and time off work and I'm not 55 yet so can't draw down. | |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. No, my "position" has not changed. Please re-read my first post. I said that £100k is more than most people will ever achieve and so a higher figure is no incentive and that the rich do not need an incentive, nor should they avoid taxation. The figures that I quoted demonstrate this. I can only keep referring you back to what I have said on multiple occasions. Pensions benefit society and there are valid reasons for Government to forgo tax revenue to encourage them. The benefit to society is achieved by not being able to access it until you retire. ISA investments benefit individuals. High levels of savings (£100k+) are predominantly held by those with high incomes and wealth so benefit them disproportionately. They benefit the individual far more than society. There is therefore limited reason for the state to forgo revenue to encourage this. Does that make sense to you when applied to the majority of people rather than the position that you have chosen? Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? So how dose a pension help society you save in to a pension tax free. How dose that help anyone else apart from the person how's pension it is. Because we have an aging demographic whereby there are more economically inactive old people than working people to support the economy. This is getting worse as birth rates continue to be below the level of replacement. Retired people will need to have an income and medical care for many years. The state cannot afford to pay this with a falling tax intake from a falling population. So, it is in the countries interest for pensions savings to be as strongly encouraged as is possible. I'd you have no income in your old age you will fall back on the state. If you "only" have £100k of discretionary savings then you have to buy a second hand Rolls Royce instead of a new one. But if you chose to have the same size pot in stoks and shears ISA as you woul in a pension what is the difference to society you would still take about 5% as an income to get you through old age. Because they are not giving you a choice to do as you wish with the money. But it's my fucking money why can't I do what I want with it. A pension scheme is for a pension, not a yacht should you happen to fancy it. If you want a pension, get a pension. And if I get a pension and get diagnosed with a terminal illness can I draw it all out and go travelling or enjoy giving it away. You can draw down 25% tax free and the rest taxed as income. You can look this up. Yer you can draw down 3 times once over the age of the pension. But if you not at 55 and have money in just a pension and are self employed and sick your left high and dry. Where if you put 12k a year in an ISA and get sick you can ues it at any time. And as its in an ISA your less likely to just dip in to it. this is wrong. You can draw down as often as you want from a pension. I suspect you may be thinking of small pots. Or may just be confused. If you are under 75 and have less than a year to live you can normally access your pot tax free. Also worth noting that your pension pot is IHT free and can be passed to any beneficiary If you die before you are 75 they can draw down tax free. If you are over 75 it's at their marginal tax rate. If you have ill health you can access before 55. Although irrc it's usual tax rules for a pension. Contribution limit is 20k pa for an ISA. £12k is the help to buy ISA. Pls ppl, if you aren't seeking professional advice, do fact check stuff. Fab is not a good source of financial advice !! (Extra caveat: not qualified so don't trust me either !!) And as said if you are 40 and get ill you can access ? I have dipped in to mine several times and will do again soon to pay for an operation and time off work and I'm not 55 yet so can't draw down." not unless it's ill health, I agree. I wouldn't put all money on a pension. You need emergency savings. Possibly 3-6 months salary. I'm not saying have all eggs in a pension. I am saying it's probably not best tax planning to have 100k in an ISA and no or limited pension. And so most ppl with 100k in an ISA have a decent amount saved. | |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. No, my "position" has not changed. Please re-read my first post. I said that £100k is more than most people will ever achieve and so a higher figure is no incentive and that the rich do not need an incentive, nor should they avoid taxation. The figures that I quoted demonstrate this. I can only keep referring you back to what I have said on multiple occasions. Pensions benefit society and there are valid reasons for Government to forgo tax revenue to encourage them. The benefit to society is achieved by not being able to access it until you retire. ISA investments benefit individuals. High levels of savings (£100k+) are predominantly held by those with high incomes and wealth so benefit them disproportionately. They benefit the individual far more than society. There is therefore limited reason for the state to forgo revenue to encourage this. Does that make sense to you when applied to the majority of people rather than the position that you have chosen? Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? So how dose a pension help society you save in to a pension tax free. How dose that help anyone else apart from the person how's pension it is. Because we have an aging demographic whereby there are more economically inactive old people than working people to support the economy. This is getting worse as birth rates continue to be below the level of replacement. Retired people will need to have an income and medical care for many years. The state cannot afford to pay this with a falling tax intake from a falling population. So, it is in the countries interest for pensions savings to be as strongly encouraged as is possible. I'd you have no income in your old age you will fall back on the state. If you "only" have £100k of discretionary savings then you have to buy a second hand Rolls Royce instead of a new one. But if you chose to have the same size pot in stoks and shears ISA as you woul in a pension what is the difference to society you would still take about 5% as an income to get you through old age. Because they are not giving you a choice to do as you wish with the money. But it's my fucking money why can't I do what I want with it. A pension scheme is for a pension, not a yacht should you happen to fancy it. If you want a pension, get a pension. And if I get a pension and get diagnosed with a terminal illness can I draw it all out and go travelling or enjoy giving it away. You can draw down 25% tax free and the rest taxed as income. You can look this up. Yer you can draw down 3 times once over the age of the pension. But if you not at 55 and have money in just a pension and are self employed and sick your left high and dry. Where if you put 12k a year in an ISA and get sick you can ues it at any time. And as its in an ISA your less likely to just dip in to it. this is wrong. You can draw down as often as you want from a pension. I suspect you may be thinking of small pots. Or may just be confused. If you are under 75 and have less than a year to live you can normally access your pot tax free. Also worth noting that your pension pot is IHT free and can be passed to any beneficiary If you die before you are 75 they can draw down tax free. If you are over 75 it's at their marginal tax rate. If you have ill health you can access before 55. Although irrc it's usual tax rules for a pension. Contribution limit is 20k pa for an ISA. £12k is the help to buy ISA. Pls ppl, if you aren't seeking professional advice, do fact check stuff. Fab is not a good source of financial advice !! (Extra caveat: not qualified so don't trust me either !!) And as said if you are 40 and get ill you can access ? I have dipped in to mine several times and will do again soon to pay for an operation and time off work and I'm not 55 yet so can't draw down.not unless it's ill health, I agree. I wouldn't put all money on a pension. You need emergency savings. Possibly 3-6 months salary. I'm not saying have all eggs in a pension. I am saying it's probably not best tax planning to have 100k in an ISA and no or limited pension. And so most ppl with 100k in an ISA have a decent amount saved. " And I guess a decent amount depends on where you have got your self in life. | |||
" So, too lazy to work anything out yourself? A small number of people have a huge amount of the ISA pie. A few people have a lot of money in ISAs. "Almost nobody" compared to the total population of the country. Why not go and find the data yourself, read it and understand it before offering an opinion rather than misunderstanding even what you are being spoonfed? Funny how you've changed your position from "100k can grow very quick - the wealthy will not change their behaviour, tax them" to "the rich have a greater share of the ISA pie" after looking up the numbers a day ago. The report, sponsored by Aberdeen Asset Management (a pension fund), does also say that saving needs be encouraged. What you don't recognise is general saving rates will be the only remainer left (if this idea is taken on), which do not offer growth. There are bonds but they are taxable and usually tie money up for a period of years, worse than an ISA. Promoting pensions as peoples sole income and fallback in later life, as we have just seen with Truss/Kwerteng; pensions can absolutely be put at risk needing BOE bailouts. I am no economics guru but saving £3000 per year over 25 yrs gives £75k, 2% interest is £1500 yearly over 25yrs is £37.5k + £75k compounded gives £112k +. That is £250pm (60pw) to get within that ballpark. saving into a DC isn't quite the same as the DB issues you describe. You can get to 100k over 25 years, agreed. If you are saving £250pm, I'd suggest you look at a pension first. Which returns to my point that those saving a decent amount into an ISA are probably saving a decent amount overall. If all you are doing is saving into an ISA, while good, you are probably missing out on better tax planning. We should be encouraging the use of pensions for these ppl imo. That is, look at the person, not the product, when thinking about this. I understand the nature of a pension, the ongoing criticism is that £100k is not attainable (even £50 or 75k)- when it's accumulated wealth over years. An inheritance or job promotion would help even more. My point is, as previous, why devalue saving. Pensions cannot be accessed like savings should you need or want cash. Tax planning, even financial planning is a rarity to come by. Early last year I spoke to a financial planner. To cut a story short I asked his outlook and the implication of possible rate rises, his answer, it will have no economic effect (at all). I know very little but enough to not hand anything to him. He was the only one of 3 or 4 I contacted to reply. No, my "position" has not changed. Please re-read my first post. I said that £100k is more than most people will ever achieve and so a higher figure is no incentive and that the rich do not need an incentive, nor should they avoid taxation. The figures that I quoted demonstrate this. I can only keep referring you back to what I have said on multiple occasions. Pensions benefit society and there are valid reasons for Government to forgo tax revenue to encourage them. The benefit to society is achieved by not being able to access it until you retire. ISA investments benefit individuals. High levels of savings (£100k+) are predominantly held by those with high incomes and wealth so benefit them disproportionately. They benefit the individual far more than society. There is therefore limited reason for the state to forgo revenue to encourage this. Does that make sense to you when applied to the majority of people rather than the position that you have chosen? Why do you think that the state should give up income to spend on teachers, nurses, roads etc. to encourage predominantly already rich people to save? So how dose a pension help society you save in to a pension tax free. How dose that help anyone else apart from the person how's pension it is. Because we have an aging demographic whereby there are more economically inactive old people than working people to support the economy. This is getting worse as birth rates continue to be below the level of replacement. Retired people will need to have an income and medical care for many years. The state cannot afford to pay this with a falling tax intake from a falling population. So, it is in the countries interest for pensions savings to be as strongly encouraged as is possible. I'd you have no income in your old age you will fall back on the state. If you "only" have £100k of discretionary savings then you have to buy a second hand Rolls Royce instead of a new one. But if you chose to have the same size pot in stoks and shears ISA as you woul in a pension what is the difference to society you would still take about 5% as an income to get you through old age. Because they are not giving you a choice to do as you wish with the money. But it's my fucking money why can't I do what I want with it. A pension scheme is for a pension, not a yacht should you happen to fancy it. If you want a pension, get a pension. And if I get a pension and get diagnosed with a terminal illness can I draw it all out and go travelling or enjoy giving it away. You can draw down 25% tax free and the rest taxed as income. You can look this up. Yer you can draw down 3 times once over the age of the pension. But if you not at 55 and have money in just a pension and are self employed and sick your left high and dry. Where if you put 12k a year in an ISA and get sick you can ues it at any time. And as its in an ISA your less likely to just dip in to it. this is wrong. You can draw down as often as you want from a pension. I suspect you may be thinking of small pots. Or may just be confused. If you are under 75 and have less than a year to live you can normally access your pot tax free. Also worth noting that your pension pot is IHT free and can be passed to any beneficiary If you die before you are 75 they can draw down tax free. If you are over 75 it's at their marginal tax rate. If you have ill health you can access before 55. Although irrc it's usual tax rules for a pension. Contribution limit is 20k pa for an ISA. £12k is the help to buy ISA. Pls ppl, if you aren't seeking professional advice, do fact check stuff. Fab is not a good source of financial advice !! (Extra caveat: not qualified so don't trust me either !!) And as said if you are 40 and get ill you can access ? I have dipped in to mine several times and will do again soon to pay for an operation and time off work and I'm not 55 yet so can't draw down.not unless it's ill health, I agree. I wouldn't put all money on a pension. You need emergency savings. Possibly 3-6 months salary. I'm not saying have all eggs in a pension. I am saying it's probably not best tax planning to have 100k in an ISA and no or limited pension. And so most ppl with 100k in an ISA have a decent amount saved. And I guess a decent amount depends on where you have got your self in life. " for sure. But I'd be fine with reducing tax relief to ppl with savings of (let's say) 1m if it can be better used for those who can't save as much. And that's as someone closer to the former group than the latter. | |||
