Top 5 financial things to do before labour get in?
Discussion
alscar said:
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. 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 ?
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.
kwit column. At some stage we have to encourage people to save for their retirement. We also have a significant issue in this country with the valuations on the UKSE…..withdrawing capital from that would be a massively retrograde step.Condi said:
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). True enough except investments and cars and the like have come from other earned and taxed income.
I’m also not apologising for choosing to put my other earned income into houses because that was my choice and as I have said with one of them lost money over a 7 year period.
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 get where you are coming from and your view is admirable but in fairness my view is different.
Inequality isn’t just down to the housing market.
I had to pay the house deposit for number 1 child and no doubt will have to do exactly the same for numbers 2 and 3.
To pay for the latter and because of the threat that Labour poses I will have to cash in my 25% tfc from my Pension to assist my children.
Now I’m happy to do that obviously.
It’s just helping everyone that I am less happy with.
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.
Quite agree actually. Hence my comment above.
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? Sorry but beg to differ - saving into a Pension scheme was a personal choice and I made sacrifices to do so.
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. Again going to have to beg to differ.
Incidentally I am acting as Executor for 2 relatives ( worked all their life blah blah ) and yes would have some of the balance of their estate net of allowance due to house price increases and value.
One will pay around £40k tax the other circa £80k.
I’m a beneficiary of one not the other but have already done a deed of variation to pass my inheritance over to my 3 children for their house funds.
Again the right thing to do - imho.
Edited by Condi on Friday 7th June 15:38
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.
There shouldn't be any tax on savings interest anyway. That money has already been taxed. If you say "no, the principal has been taxed but the interest hasn't", you are simply mathematically incorrect.
E.g. with no tax: you earn £100, put it in savings, and earn £10 interest.
With tax on earnings: you earn £100, you get £80, put it in savings, and earn £8 interest.
So no only did you lose 20% of the principal, you also lost 20% of the interest.
If we tax the interest too, you lose another 20% on top. There's no justification for it.
E.g. with no tax: you earn £100, put it in savings, and earn £10 interest.
With tax on earnings: you earn £100, you get £80, put it in savings, and earn £8 interest.
So no only did you lose 20% of the principal, you also lost 20% of the interest.
If we tax the interest too, you lose another 20% on top. There's no justification for it.
98elise said:
The problem with LTA is that you have no idea what the allowance will be when you retire, or how it will affect you whille saving. The history of LTA is all over the place with the rules and allowances changing on a whim, yet you're having to plan decades ahead for what might be decades of retirement ...
When ordinary people are having to plan for years of retirement the rules should be relatively easy to understand, and have some degree of certainty and stability.
Indeed.When ordinary people are having to plan for years of retirement the rules should be relatively easy to understand, and have some degree of certainty and stability.
thinkofaname said:
There shouldn't be any tax on savings interest anyway. That money has already been taxed. If you say "no, the principal has been taxed but the interest hasn't", you are simply mathematically incorrect.
E.g. with no tax: you earn £100, put it in savings, and earn £10 interest.
With tax on earnings: you earn £100, you get £80, put it in savings, and earn £8 interest.
So no only did you lose 20% of the principal, you also lost 20% of the interest.
If we tax the interest too, you lose another 20% on top. There's no justification for it.
The concept of any sort of purchase tax must really fE.g. with no tax: you earn £100, put it in savings, and earn £10 interest.
With tax on earnings: you earn £100, you get £80, put it in savings, and earn £8 interest.
So no only did you lose 20% of the principal, you also lost 20% of the interest.
If we tax the interest too, you lose another 20% on top. There's no justification for it.
k with your head. thinkofaname said:
There shouldn't be any tax on savings interest anyway. That money has already been taxed. If you say "no, the principal has been taxed but the interest hasn't", you are simply mathematically incorrect.
E.g. with no tax: you earn £100, put it in savings, and earn £10 interest.
With tax on earnings: you earn £100, you get £80, put it in savings, and earn £8 interest.
So no only did you lose 20% of the principal, you also lost 20% of the interest.
If we tax the interest too, you lose another 20% on top. There's no justification for it.
When has any politician adequately justified the reason for taxing anything? After this election there's going to several other areas that will become subject to taxation...and as always, those areas were acquired by money that had been taxed as income, so taxed twice.E.g. with no tax: you earn £100, put it in savings, and earn £10 interest.
With tax on earnings: you earn £100, you get £80, put it in savings, and earn £8 interest.
So no only did you lose 20% of the principal, you also lost 20% of the interest.
If we tax the interest too, you lose another 20% on top. There's no justification for it.
R
thinkofaname said:
There shouldn't be any tax on savings interest anyway. That money has already been taxed. If you say "no, the principal has been taxed but the interest hasn't", you are simply mathematically incorrect.
E.g. with no tax: you earn £100, put it in savings, and earn £10 interest.
With tax on earnings: you earn £100, you get £80, put it in savings, and earn £8 interest.
So no only did you lose 20% of the principal, you also lost 20% of the interest.
If we tax the interest too, you lose another 20% on top. There's no justification for it.
E.g. with no tax: you earn £100, put it in savings, and earn £10 interest.
With tax on earnings: you earn £100, you get £80, put it in savings, and earn £8 interest.
So no only did you lose 20% of the principal, you also lost 20% of the interest.
If we tax the interest too, you lose another 20% on top. There's no justification for it.
It has been proven repeatedly, that a motivation to work, aspiration to do better and incentives, are the ingredients for an economy to prosper, jobs are created and most citizens benefit.
We have also witnessed the opposite. Taxation reached 98% total on one occasion. The slogan coined at the time was 'Brain Drain', because of the number of people leaving the UK. High taxation makes us all feel, what is the point of working.
The topic title asks what should we do.
The Labour Party are saying, no increase in Income Tax, NI, or VAT for working people.
If they even keep true to their words, there is still huge scope for raising more tax;
Scrap the tax-free benefits ISAs.
Charge CGT on all homes when they are sold.
Introduce a new tax on anyone earning more than the average wage (need a new name, because of that promise).
Double Council Tax.
Remove tax relief on Pensions.
Clamp down on anyone who has savings.
Special tax on anyone owning more than one car.
Each time the Labour Party have been in government, they have had a record of spending, so they need to get the money from somewhere.
The chart below shows the Conservative Party hugely increased spending during their last term, but of course the pandemic involvement in that.
I can think of a couple of unfair taxes;
Paying tax on tax - VAT on Fuel Duty.
Paying tax on inflation - CGT.
What will happen when Sir [call me mister, Private School educated (Reigate Grammer)] Starmer is Prime Minister I dont know, but can understand why this topic was started.
Did you hear about the promise of 16,000 extra teachers?
He must have forgotten to mention, that will only be one third of a teacher for each school.
They probably won't be Mathematics teachers,
otherwise the pupils will work out what a ridiculous pledge that is, especially when considering new teachers replace existing teachers as they retire anyway.Jon39 said:
thinkofaname said:
There shouldn't be any tax on savings interest anyway. That money has already been taxed. If you say "no, the principal has been taxed but the interest hasn't", you are simply mathematically incorrect.
E.g. with no tax: you earn £100, put it in savings, and earn £10 interest.
With tax on earnings: you earn £100, you get £80, put it in savings, and earn £8 interest.
So no only did you lose 20% of the principal, you also lost 20% of the interest.
If we tax the interest too, you lose another 20% on top. There's no justification for it.
E.g. with no tax: you earn £100, put it in savings, and earn £10 interest.
With tax on earnings: you earn £100, you get £80, put it in savings, and earn £8 interest.
So no only did you lose 20% of the principal, you also lost 20% of the interest.
If we tax the interest too, you lose another 20% on top. There's no justification for it.
It has been proven repeatedly, that a motivation to work, aspiration to do better and incentives, are the ingredients for an economy to prosper, jobs are created and most citizens benefit.
We have also witnessed the opposite. Taxation reached 98% total on one occasion. The slogan coined at the time was 'Brain Drain', because of the number of people leaving the UK. High taxation makes us all feel, what is the point of working.
The topic title asks what should we do.
The Labour Party are saying, no increase in Income Tax, NI, or VAT for working people.
If they even keep true to their words, there is still huge scope for raising more tax;
Scrap the tax-free benefits ISAs.
Charge CGT on all homes when they are sold.
Introduce a new tax on anyone earning more than the average wage (need a new name, because of that promise).
Double Council Tax.
Remove tax relief on Pensions.
Clamp down on anyone who has savings.
Special tax on anyone owning more than one car.
Each time the Labour Party have been in government, they have had a record of spending, so they need to get the money from somewhere.
The chart below shows the Conservative Party hugely increased spending during their last term, but of course the pandemic involvement in that.
So Basically the workers are f
ked might as well sell my business store our wealth offshore and sit and do nothing nice one! 
I can think of a couple of unfair taxes;
Paying tax on tax - VAT on Fuel Duty.
Paying tax on inflation - CGT.
What will happen when Sir [call me mister, Private School educated (Reigate Grammer)] Starmer is Prime Minister I dont know, but can understand why this topic was started.
Did you hear about the promise of 16,000 extra teachers?
He must have forgotten to mention, that will only be one third of a teacher for each school.
They probably won't be Mathematics teachers,
otherwise the pupils will work out what a ridiculous pledge that is, especially when considering new teachers replace existing teachers as they retire anyway.Jon39 said:
The topic title asks what should we do.
The Labour Party are saying, no increase in Income Tax, NI, or VAT for working people.
If they even keep true to their words, there is still huge scope for raising more tax;
Scrap the tax-free benefits ISAs.
Charge CGT on all homes when they are sold.
Introduce a new tax on anyone earning more than the average wage (need a new name, because of that promise).
Double Council Tax.
Remove tax relief on Pensions.
Clamp down on anyone who has savings.
Special tax on anyone owning more than one car.
Each time the Labour Party have been in government, they have had a record of spending, so they need to get the money from somewhere.
You have summed up what I suspect will happen based on past Labour governments' decisions. The Labour Party are saying, no increase in Income Tax, NI, or VAT for working people.
If they even keep true to their words, there is still huge scope for raising more tax;
Scrap the tax-free benefits ISAs.
Charge CGT on all homes when they are sold.
Introduce a new tax on anyone earning more than the average wage (need a new name, because of that promise).
Double Council Tax.
Remove tax relief on Pensions.
Clamp down on anyone who has savings.
Special tax on anyone owning more than one car.
Each time the Labour Party have been in government, they have had a record of spending, so they need to get the money from somewhere.
The key to being a politician is to be able to lie without the population realising it so said politician can always deny what they said in the past
R.
The Leaper said:
You have summed up what I suspect will happen based on past Labour governments' decisions.
The key to being a politician is to be able to lie without the population realising it, so said politician can always deny what they said in the past
R.
The key to being a politician is to be able to lie without the population realising it, so said politician can always deny what they said in the past
R.
Slight jest here.
Your explanation might be why VAT on Independent Schools has been proposed.
The 'hard working' (not as in Mr Starmer's definition) parents, who can only just manage to pay the fees, will all be trying to move their children to overcrowded state schools. The overcrowding will increase, teaching will become more difficult and mathematical understanding will worsen.
A perfect scenario for making more numeric political promises in the future, when Diane Abbott is Chancellor of the Exchequer and dreads being interviewed by Nick Ferrari.
I do know the real reason.
Edited by Jon39 on Friday 7th June 19:05
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.
I couldn’t give a flying fI find it very very hard to believe all your wealth has come from work, and that certainly wouldn't be typical.
k what you believe. Everything I have comes from taxed wages and the fact that that confuses you is neither here nor there.Ken_Code 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.
I couldn’t give a flying fI find it very very hard to believe all your wealth has come from work, and that certainly wouldn't be typical.
k what you believe. Everything I have comes from taxed wages and the fact that that confuses you is neither here nor there.The point is many people have had big wealth increases through no work, you deliberately want to ignore that. Bought a house in the past, maybe got a 30% discount on it as an ex-council house, it’s worth 300% more which hasn’t been taxed and you pull the money out of it to gift it to your kid 7 years before you die, again tax free. Your kid is set up for life based not on hard work, but a big tax free gift from the government. Your kids mate is the same age and does the same job but is screwed as their parents didn’t buy a house and don’t leave them money.
It’s funny how many conservatives think your life should be not about how hard you work. It’s the sort of thing that over time ruins society as there is no point in working - remember that on average people have had no purchase power increase as wage growth has only matched inflation in that time, so on average you can’t catch up at all.
Ken_Code said:
And here we have the very essence of the left wing in the UK, you want higher earners taxed more because you dislike them.
I’m tax resident in Amsterdam, and part of the reason for that is parasites like you.
Where have income taxes been mentioned? I’m tax resident in Amsterdam, and part of the reason for that is parasites like you.
The whole point being made (which you've clearly missed) is that income from not working (ie house price increases, inheritance, investments, etc) is taxed at a lower rate than working. People like yourself who work hard and are well paid should be allowed to keep at least as much as now, if not more, but the taxes on unearnt income should be higher, to (IMO) at least the same level as the tax paid on working income.
It's got nothing to do with how much you earn from your salary, which is precisely the point.
Ken_Code said:
NRS said:
Hope you enjoy the increased tax coming, lol.
And here we have the very essence of the left wing in the UK, you want higher earners taxed more because you dislike them.I’m tax resident in Amsterdam, and part of the reason for that is parasites like you.
Do you like to make assumptions? I’m lucky enough to earn 6 figures and will almost certainly be paying a higher tax rate than you given I chose to move to Norway. Given a bit of time I’ll almost certainly be having to pay a wealth tax each year too.
The problem with some people is they assume anyone talking about high taxes is a poor lazy person. My issue is that many people want others to pay the high tax, when we all need to pay it and we also have a society that is killing growth due to the way the tax rules in general are set up to protect wealth instead of encouraging new growth.
Many on the right are missing that what they want these days is a system that doesn’t reward your hard work or help make new money, they want a system of handouts determined on your parents/grandparents etc. work, not your own work.
Edited by NRS on Friday 7th June 21:31
Perhaps we all need to adopt a completely new mindset, so that we will fit in for the next 5 years.
Bursaries to enable children from low income families to receive a better education are immoral.
Tax the schools by adding VAT to fees and that should clear out the stinking rich privileged skivers.
[Sir Kier Starmer had his private Reigate Grammer school fees paid for by a bursary]
That does not matter, because as soon as he moves in to Downing Street, we will get the unions to replace the toff by Jeremy Corbyn.
Anyone who started a successful business employing thousands of people and has become stinking rich, will be taxed at 98% as we did in the 1970s, to teach them a lesson. We hate the rich and Britain and agree with one of our shadow ministers who eloquently said, "I hate the tory s**m".
What we want is the 1970s again.
Protest marches, streets piled up with rotting garbage, state employees all on strike, inflation at 25% and businesses trying to work 3 days a week, because the state provided electricity was only switched on for 3 days each week.
Perhaps difficult to believe now, unless you were trying to work during the 1970s.
The phrase then was, 'beer and sandwiches at number 10', referring to the union chiefs attending meetings at No.10, telling the Prime Minister what to do.
Eventually the IMF had to bail out failing Great Britain.
Condi said:
Where have income taxes been mentioned?
The whole point being made (which you've clearly missed) is that income from not working (ie house price increases, inheritance, investments, etc) is taxed at a lower rate than working. People like yourself who work hard and are well paid should be allowed to keep at least as much as now, if not more, but the taxes on unearnt income should be higher, to (IMO) at least the same level as the tax paid on working income.
It's got nothing to do with how much you earn from your salary, which is precisely the point.
A lot of people with no material advantage have made sacrifices to buy a house whilst others have prioritised spending more on holidays and socialising etc. Are you saying that they should be taxed on the increase in the value of their home when they were prepared to take the risk in the first place. In this case why bother? With regards to taxation the higher earners already pay much more. If you earn 3 times the national average you don’t pay 3 times the tax more like 5 timesThe whole point being made (which you've clearly missed) is that income from not working (ie house price increases, inheritance, investments, etc) is taxed at a lower rate than working. People like yourself who work hard and are well paid should be allowed to keep at least as much as now, if not more, but the taxes on unearnt income should be higher, to (IMO) at least the same level as the tax paid on working income.
It's got nothing to do with how much you earn from your salary, which is precisely the point.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff