Top 5 financial things to do before labour get in?

[Condi]

Ken_Code said:

That link isn’t about wealth inequality.

What data are you basing the claim on that wealth inequality is increasing? I don’t think that it is.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1233856/wealth...

A data set which ends 24 years ago is not very relevant, is it?!

There are multiple reports on the subject;

Resolute Foundation said:

We find that the top three household net wealth deciles held a larger share of wealth in 2016–18 than ten years earlier, and the middle 50% shrank. This has been driven by rising financial wealth relative to property wealth. Importantly, average gains in financial wealth over the past decade are explained more by passive capital gains than by active saving, and wealth gains have accrued mostly to families that already held financial assets.

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2020/12/The-UKs-wealth-distribution.pdf

Joseph Rowntree Foundation said:

In the UK, the bottom 50% of the population owned less than 5% of wealth in 2021, and the top 10% a staggering 57% (up from 52.5% in 1995).

https://www.jrf.org.uk/wealth-funding-and-investment-practice/changing-the-narrative-on-wealth-inequality

It makes logical sense, increases in house prices have outperformed increases in wages and also inflation, it must therefore be that if you owned a house 20 years ago you are considerably better off than someone who didn't own a house at the same point. People who are renting did not benefit from that above inflation increase in asset values and are now having to spend proportionally more of their income on rent without any of the benefits of owning the place.

It is also well known that wealth inequality is greater than income inequality, which will only get worse as the older generations die off and pass their house and assets down to their children and grandchildren, giving them a much greater leg up on the property ladder than someone who's parents cannot afford to help them, or who don't own a home of their own.

[Ken_Code]

An increase if 3.5% in the share of the wealth held by the top 10% of the population over twenty-six years shows that you are being less than honest here. That’s effectively zero change over a quarter of a century.

No, the claim that wealth inequality is widening seems pretty poorly evidenced, and certainly not well enough that anyone ought to be trying to remove some of the wealth of the top 10% to hand to some other people who have done literally nothing to earn it.

Like many people, all of my net worth has come from savings from my (highly) taxed wages. Taking more of it from me because I saved it rather than spent it isn’t what I’d view as fair.

Edited by Ken_Code on Friday 7th June 13:05

[MiniPro3]

Labour's Capped Cash ISA's

Just read there is a proposal to cap the total amount people can save in ISAs at £100,000. This proposal has been suggested by the Resolution Foundation think-tank , As a result of this proposal, it is likely that interest earned on cash ISAs above the £100,000 limit would be taxed. This means that individuals who have saved more than £100,000 in their ISAs would be subject to taxation on the interest earned on the excess amount.
any thoughts on whether Labour would take this up, and what would the implications be i.e.. if you had a large sum say 500K what would be the best solution cash them in and buy a rental property or go on a spending spree , lets face it if you have grafted hard all your life and saved taxed income this is unfair thoughts anyone ?

[Condi]

Ken_Code said:

Like many people, all of my net worth has come from savings from my (highly) taxed wages.

So you don't own a house? No shares? No classic car? Artwork? Wine collection? No assets or investments at all?

I find it very very hard to believe all your wealth has come from work, and that certainly wouldn't be typical.

[alscar]

MiniPro3 said:

Labour's Capped Cash ISA's

Just read there is a proposal to cap the total amount people can save in ISAs at £100,000. This proposal has been suggested by the Resolution Foundation think-tank , As a result of this proposal, it is likely that interest earned on cash ISAs above the £100,000 limit would be taxed. This means that individuals who have saved more than £100,000 in their ISAs would be subject to taxation on the interest earned on the excess amount.
any thoughts on whether Labour would take this up, and what would the implications be i.e.. if you had a large sum say 500K what would be the best solution cash them in and buy a rental property or go on a spending spree , lets face it if you have grafted hard all your life and saved taxed income this is unfair thoughts anyone ?

This foundation is a Labour think tank and just a suggestion along with new wealth taxes.
Supposedly “ only “ a couple of million families would be affected above £100k so would raise relatively small additional tax.
No mention of what would be done should the ISA’s be held in shares.
If they did do it then one assumes plenty of time to move to other tax efficient wrappers.
I think other things will be prioritised to raise money first.

[MiniPro3]

Condi said:

Ken_Code said:

Like many people, all of my net worth has come from savings from my (highly) taxed wages.

So you don't own a house? No shares? No classic car? Artwork? Wine collection? No assets or investments at all?

I find it very very hard to believe all your wealth has come from work, and that certainly wouldn't be typical.

Really? sound like you are envious of hard working grafters, whom deserve their wealth.

[alscar]

Condi said:

So you don't own a house? No shares? No classic car? Artwork? Wine collection? No assets or investments at all?

I find it very very hard to believe all your wealth has come from work, and that certainly wouldn't be typical.

In fairness why wouldn’t that be typical ?
My cars and any shares / investments have been bought solely from my prior earnings.
I have lost money on one house and made money on 3 others but any profit as such was put into our next house.
I haven’t inherited a penny.

[okgo]

Condi said:

So you don't own a house? No shares? No classic car? Artwork? Wine collection? No assets or investments at all?

I find it very very hard to believe all your wealth has come from work, and that certainly wouldn't be typical.

If he does he has likely purchased those with his taxed income, is that his point?

[RizzoTheRat]

Ken_Code said:

Like many people, all of my net worth has come from savings from my (highly) taxed wages. Taking more of it from me because I saved it rather than spent it isn’t what I’d view as fair.

Isn't that the point, they want to encourage you to spend it rather than save it to keep the economy churning over. Of course if you spend it now they'll have to pay for your old care, and you won't be leaving anything to your kids for them to tax, but that's a future problem..

[PM3]

Ken_Code said:

BAMoFo said:

Unless the tax on the 'unearnt' bit includes inflation i think it would be very unfair.

Labour’s unlikely to base their decisions on what’s fair, it’ll be more about loading ever more of the financial burden on the top quarter of earners.

Good ! Its about time the hard workers, the high tax payers , the careful investors for future and those careful with not over spending compared to income were taught a lesson

[MiniPro3]

PM3 said:

Ken_Code said:

BAMoFo said:

Unless the tax on the 'unearnt' bit includes inflation i think it would be very unfair.

Labour’s unlikely to base their decisions on what’s fair, it’ll be more about loading ever more of the financial burden on the top quarter of earners.

Good ! Its about time the hard workers, the high tax payers , the careful investors for future and those careful with not over spending compared to income were taught a lesson

Satire we Hope,
Too many shirkers and not enough contributors will bankrupt the UK We pay far to much tax as it is , about time the Gov stopped wasting our taxed money

[PM3]

MiniPro3 said:

PM3 said:

Ken_Code said:

BAMoFo said:

Unless the tax on the 'unearnt' bit includes inflation i think it would be very unfair.

Labour’s unlikely to base their decisions on what’s fair, it’ll be more about loading ever more of the financial burden on the top quarter of earners.

Good ! Its about time the hard workers, the high tax payers , the careful investors for future and those careful with not over spending compared to income were taught a lesson

Satire we Hope,
Too many shirkers and not enough contributors will bankrupt the UK We pay far to much tax as it is , about time the Gov stopped wasting our taxed money

Satire and a sick feeling of watching a train wreck about to unfold.

[Condi]

alscar said:

I have lost money on one house and made money on 3 others but any profit as such was put into our next house.
I haven’t inherited a penny.

That you've not inherited it is neither here nor there and neither is the fact you've put that into your next property, the profit you've made from 3 houses is entirely unearnt income and will be passed down to your children or grandchildren.

This money hasn't come from nowhere, it is being paid for/taken out of the earnings of the people buying a house today.

[MiniPro3]

Condi said:

alscar said:

I have lost money on one house and made money on 3 others but any profit as such was put into our next house.
I haven’t inherited a penny.

That you've not inherited it is neither here nor there and neither is the fact you've put that into your next property, the profit you've made from 3 houses is entirely unearnt income and will be passed down to your children or grandchildren.

This money hasn't come from nowhere, it is being paid for/taken out of the earnings of the people buying a house today.

You do know that ISA's have been around 25 years, with compound interest and saving the max will equate to 500K (Approx.) so self employed Brick layer working 7 days a week can easily put the max into ISA's every year after making a few sacrifices, plus using partners allowance. So hard graft will pay off. Try it someday its very refreshing and good for your sole.

[MiniPro3]

PM3 said:

MiniPro3 said:

PM3 said:

Ken_Code said:

BAMoFo said:

Unless the tax on the 'unearnt' bit includes inflation i think it would be very unfair.

Labour’s unlikely to base their decisions on what’s fair, it’ll be more about loading ever more of the financial burden on the top quarter of earners.

Good ! Its about time the hard workers, the high tax payers , the careful investors for future and those careful with not over spending compared to income were taught a lesson

Satire we Hope,
Too many shirkers and not enough contributors will bankrupt the UK We pay far to much tax as it is , about time the Gov stopped wasting our taxed money

Satire and a sick feeling of watching a train wreck about to unfold.

[MiniPro3]

okgo said:

Condi said:

So you don't own a house? No shares? No classic car? Artwork? Wine collection? No assets or investments at all?

I find it very very hard to believe all your wealth has come from work, and that certainly wouldn't be typical.

If he does he has likely purchased those with his taxed income, is that his point?

Oh forgot to add Yes own a very nice house all bought and paid for

[Olivera]

MiniPro3 said:

Try it someday its very refreshing and good for your sole.

Feet or fish?

[alscar]

Condi said:

That you've not inherited it is neither here nor there and neither is the fact you've put that into your next property, the profit you've made from 3 houses is entirely unearnt income and will be passed down to your children or grandchildren.

This money hasn't come from nowhere, it is being paid for/taken out of the earnings of the people buying a house today.

My point was as I suspect you well understand is that it’s been solely my earnings that have allowed such purchases if only to pay for mortgages and such like.
Given I lost money on one house and also purchased 2 others along the way are you also saying I took money from myself ?
I only made the inheritance comment as you seem to find it difficult to accept that some people may have actually worked quite hard since they were they 17 , paid their fair share of tax ( if not more ) and perhaps as such struggle with the idea of paying yet more money as relatively easy targets to be hit.
It’s a bit like paying into a pension scheme for decades or saving for decades only to find that the government want to then penalise you.
Btw if I want to give my house to my children or grandchildren and pay another 40% to the government for doing so is that not something I’m allowed to do ?

[Condi]

alscar said:

My point was as I suspect you well understand is that it’s been solely my earnings that have allowed such purchases if only to pay for mortgages and such like.

Of course, but the money you will pass down isn't solely your earnings, it is the amount the house has gone up over time, which is larger than inflation or earnings income. The money you "made" on the houses hasn't come from your earnings. It's come from someone else's earnings (ie the buyer).

alscar said:

I only made the inheritance comment as you seem to find it difficult to accept that some people may have actually worked quite hard since they were they 17 , paid their fair share of tax ( if not more ) and perhaps as such struggle with the idea of paying yet more money as relatively easy targets to be hit.

Not something I find difficult to accept at all, without wishing to go into my situation, but almost everything I own with the exception of a relatively small amount of inheritance (circa £20k) is from my own earnings. However I am astute enough to understand that those who earn the most are more able to pay the most tax, and that given the complete mess the country is in, taxes are going to have to rise. I am also very passionate about the inequality which exists and which is hugely entrenched as a result of house price rises benefiting some people in the country while those who do not own houses or who's parents/grandparents do not own houses suffer with increasing rents. We have one of the most (if not the most) unequal society in Europe, which is a very big social problem, either now or in the future.

Again, not that it should matter, but I own my own place and have benefitted from house price rises, however I would be very happy if the house was worth what I paid for it, because seeing kids now at 20 taking on a £150k mortgage just to buy a 2 bed flat is clearly not great for them and clearly not great for society! Houses should be a place to live, a roof over your head, not a tax free investment vehicle. I've also told my parents to spend all their money and enjoy it while they're alive rather than worrying about passing anything down.

alscar said:

It’s a bit like paying into a pension scheme for decades or saving for decades only to find that the government want to then penalise you.

It is nothing like that at all. It's like putting £50k under a stone in the garden and coming back 10 years later to find it's worth £150k. You have done nothing to earn it, it's done nothing productive in that time, and so why shouldn't the government take some to help fix the problems the country faces?

alscar said:

Btw if I want to give my house to my children or grandchildren and pay another 40% to the government for doing so is that not something I’m allowed to do ?

At the moment yes, but much of that money is unearnt income, not "solely from your wages", which is something you don't seem comprehend. If you're married you get, what £700k?, tax free to hand down, which by any standards is a lot of money. IMO that allowance should be vastly reduced, or at least properties should be removed from that tax free allowance.

Edited by Condi on Friday 7th June 15:38

[okgo]

My main issue with all that is I think even with unlimited money they wouldn’t fix half of the issues in this country. So I don’t want to give them more of mine.