adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 25, 2023 8:05:46 GMT
yes and the Commission admitted to me that they have not the slightest resources to investigate anyone "This government massively underfunding public sector", hold the front page. Ah, now there we get into a much wider question. If there's one thing that the pandemic should have taught us, it's that there's a hell of a lot of totally unnecessary journeys and fuel use, many of which can be easily replaced by online video conferencing and meetings, now that the tech is mature. If there's one thing that the pandemic DID teach us, it's that there's a hell of a lot of things that really do benefit from being face-to-face...
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,140
Likes: 1,486
|
Post by pikestaff on Jan 25, 2023 8:47:49 GMT
TESSAs, PEPs and ISAs were all to do with encouraging long term saving, because the UK's saving rates were so low. Unless the reasons for wanting people to save more have gone away (Narrator: they hadn't) then it would be an own goal to mess around with what people have already saved or to discourage saving. However, if they were so minded, then it seems to me the very obvious thing to do is the reduce the annual ISA allowance. This is what they are doing that with all the other tax reliefs, be it by fiscal drag (pensions, tax thresholds) or actual cuts (CGT allowance, dividend tax allowance). It wasn't all that long ago that the main ISA allowance was not much more than £10,000 and the Junior ISA £4000. Not sure that the money then not put in ISAs would all go into taxable investments or realised gains, although the CGT/dividend tax reductions will start to bite at some point in the future for sure. Yes, but as the Resolution Foundation paper explains, they are largely ineffective. As has long been known, the vast majority of the tax subsidy is going into savings that would have been made anyway. The paper argues for more targeted savings support that will go where it is actually needed. Capping lifetime ISA contributions at £100k would be no disincentive for the vast majority, whose savings are well below that. And I don't believe for a minute that such a cap would have a significant effect on how much people who can save more put away. It might have an effect on what they put their money into - and if they put more into property it would be a bad thing - but that's another matter.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,140
Likes: 1,486
|
Post by pikestaff on Jan 25, 2023 8:59:49 GMT
Just a ruse to plunder an easily accessable source under the guise of levelling (up)(down). Incredibly stupid move considering his vote support. Just another example of how out of touch is Richie Rich and Bent Nadhim with reality of their power base. 'Must do something for The Poor..?.Oh I know!' I agree, the older people get the less left wing they become, and certainly I know a lot of pensioners with an ISA often topped up with / from a pension lump sum. Of course these are people that saved in the first place and therefore didn't blow the lot on cars, holidays, or hair transplants, teeth veneers, or cosmetic surgery in eastern European countries. No longer the case, apparently, and for pretty obvious reasons. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/politics-conservative-twitter-millennials-gen-z_uk_63aef8cce4b0d6f0b9f354c5www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/03/millennials-radicalism-not-getting-more-rightwing-with-ageI recommend the FT story on which these comments are based. It is behind a paywall but the Google link works. Google "Millennials are shattering the oldest rule in politics".
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 25, 2023 10:47:46 GMT
TESSAs, PEPs and ISAs were all to do with encouraging long term saving, because the UK's saving rates were so low. Unless the reasons for wanting people to save more have gone away (Narrator: they hadn't) then it would be an own goal to mess around with what people have already saved or to discourage saving. However, if they were so minded, then it seems to me the very obvious thing to do is the reduce the annual ISA allowance. This is what they are doing that with all the other tax reliefs, be it by fiscal drag (pensions, tax thresholds) or actual cuts (CGT allowance, dividend tax allowance). It wasn't all that long ago that the main ISA allowance was not much more than £10,000 and the Junior ISA £4000. Not sure that the money then not put in ISAs would all go into taxable investments or realised gains, although the CGT/dividend tax reductions will start to bite at some point in the future for sure. Yes, but as the Resolution Foundation paper explains, they are largely ineffective. As has long been known, the vast majority of the tax subsidy is going into savings that would have been made anyway. The paper argues for more targeted savings support that will go where it is actually needed. Capping lifetime ISA contributions at £100k would be no disincentive for the vast majority, whose savings are well below that. And I don't believe for a minute that such a cap would have a significant effect on how much people who can save more put away. It might have an effect on what they put their money into - and if they put more into property it would be a bad thing - but that's another matter. Sure - may well be right. Won't know until you do it I suppose. I was going to add in my post that property would remain the huge tax break if you take ISAs away - grossly undertaxed in the UK still. Worth remembering too that before PEPS/ISAs, there used to be a tax credit on dividends reflecting the corporation tax paid - that has all gradually gone, making dividends increasingly un tax friendly outside of tax shelters, and it would not be a surprise that companies would stop paying them (as in the US) which reduces tax take from reducing ISA allowance (or at least defers it into CGT, and at a lower rate). Also struck me that having annual caps and lifetime caps is problematic, as seen in pensions, where you get penalised for growth in the future that you can't predict. Annual cap seems more practical and easy to manage - so like I said, just reduce the annual limit back down to where it was before if the concerns is it is too high.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,140
Likes: 1,486
|
Post by pikestaff on Jan 25, 2023 12:22:22 GMT
Yes, but as the Resolution Foundation paper explains, they are largely ineffective. As has long been known, the vast majority of the tax subsidy is going into savings that would have been made anyway. The paper argues for more targeted savings support that will go where it is actually needed. Capping lifetime ISA contributions at £100k would be no disincentive for the vast majority, whose savings are well below that. And I don't believe for a minute that such a cap would have a significant effect on how much people who can save more put away. It might have an effect on what they put their money into - and if they put more into property it would be a bad thing - but that's another matter. Sure - may well be right. Won't know until you do it I suppose. I was going to add in my post that property would remain the huge tax break if you take ISAs away - grossly undertaxed in the UK still. Worth remembering too that before PEPS/ISAs, there used to be a tax credit on dividends reflecting the corporation tax paid - that has all gradually gone, making dividends increasingly un tax friendly outside of tax shelters, and it would not be a surprise that companies would stop paying them (as in the US) which reduces tax take from reducing ISA allowance ( or at least defers it into CGT, and at a lower rate). Also struck me that having annual caps and lifetime caps is problematic, as seen in pensions, where you get penalised for growth in the future that you can't predict. Annual cap seems more practical and easy to manage - so like I said, just reduce the annual limit back down to where it was before if the concerns is it is too high. Property, especially main residence - I agree, grossly undertaxed. CGT on shares - This is complicated for both taxpayer and HMRC, especially if more end up paying it in the event that ISAs are cut. The simple solution is to tax realised net gains on shares as income. Net losses could be carried forward (and maybe back) until used. Lifetime cap problematic? Not if the cap is applied to contributions rather than the amount in the pot. There would need to be some transitional rules obviously. The simplest would be to say no further contributions could be made if the pot on the date of change was £X or more (maybe £200k), with a sliding scale such that the full lifetime cap would apply if the pot on the date of change was less than £Y (maybe £20k). This would leave the tax free status of existing ISA savings untouched. If a government were to take the politically much more difficult step of withdrawing the tax free status of some existing ISA savings the transitional rules would need to be more complicated - not least to protect those who have chosen to save in ISAs instead of pensions because of their greater flexibility. One option: let them transfer out from their ISA to their pension without this affecting their annual allowance for pension contributions (though they would have to beware of the pensions lifetime cap). I agree that the annual cap is too high.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,889
Likes: 2,321
|
Post by keitha on Jan 25, 2023 13:25:46 GMT
But how do you tax property fairly
My income is similar to that of my OH Currently her house is worth 4 times as much as mine, but she pays 50% more council tax than me, if she lived where I do she would pay 3 times as much as me.
We need a fair housing tax system, I believe second properties should pay double council tax, a third property triple and so on. I live in one of the poorest areas of the UK yet we pay more in council tax than people living in Westminster.
council tax set at 1% of property value, would mean I would pay the same as now my OH would pay twice as much as she does now so 3 times as much as me, but you could get the little old lady on a pension in a million pound house having a bill equal to her income.
5% of household income would leave me about the same, would reduce my OH's bill by 1/3. Would certainly mean Rishi, top footballers etc paying more but that's just a tax on income not the property
how do we arrive at a fair solution ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2023 13:41:48 GMT
I find the ISA limits all too low but then I don't believe in taxing capital gains.
interestingly nor do most people. Most people are not taxed on their main house's sale at inflated prices. They would not be happy with that being taxed. Every time we introduce another little get out of jail card we make simple tax more complicated
we are taxed when we earn and we are taxed when we spend, is it just me but then we have to introduce get out of jails, no tax on food, children's clothes, no tax if you earn too little.
every little get out of jail card means a job for a tax avoidance/avaision assistant and a distortion to the market.
If we have to tax stuff lets have one rate, rather than one for a charity, one for a business, one for an employee, one for self employed one for a partnership etc etc
latest nonsense is about getting the first £1k of dividend income at zero tax and you can sell £1k of goods without tax (excluding cars which seem to be exempt). Talk about a mess
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,889
Likes: 2,321
|
Post by keitha on Jan 25, 2023 14:27:54 GMT
I find the ISA limits all too low but then I don't believe in taxing capital gains.
interestingly nor do most people. Most people are not taxed on their main house's sale at inflated prices. They would not be happy with that being taxed. Every time we introduce another little get out of jail card we make simple tax more complicated
we are taxed when we earn and we are taxed when we spend, is it just me but then we have to introduce get out of jails, no tax on food, children's clothes, no tax if you earn too little.
every little get out of jail card means a job for a tax avoidance/evaision assistant and a distortion to the market.
If we have to tax stuff lets have one rate, rather than one for a charity, one for a business, one for an employee, one for self employed one for a partnership etc etc
latest nonsense is about getting the first £1k of dividend income at zero tax and you can sell £1k of goods without tax (excluding cars which seem to be exempt). Talk about a mess
And people "think" they can sell as much as they want on platforms like Ebay, Vinted etc tax free. I remember being told some time ago of a person visited by a nurse and she said "I hope this won't take too long I have eBay stuff to post" this was a person in receipt of benefits who saw it as ok that she was making £200-300 a week profit on eBay not paying tax and not declaring it as income to benefits people as it was a "hobby" . wasn't it in the 70's that a higher VAT rate on luxuries was introduced that was so badly thought out fridges were subject to the higher rate but yachts weren't
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 996
Likes: 1,202
|
Post by james100 on Jan 25, 2023 14:38:34 GMT
I find the ISA limits all too low but then I don't believe in taxing capital gains.
interestingly nor do most people. Most people are not taxed on their main house's sale at inflated prices. They would not be happy with that being taxed. Every time we introduce another little get out of jail card we make simple tax more complicated
we are taxed when we earn and we are taxed when we spend, is it just me but then we have to introduce get out of jails, no tax on food, children's clothes, no tax if you earn too little.
every little get out of jail card means a job for a tax avoidance/avaision assistant and a distortion to the market.
If we have to tax stuff lets have one rate, rather than one for a charity, one for a business, one for an employee, one for self employed one for a partnership etc etc
latest nonsense is about getting the first £1k of dividend income at zero tax and you can sell £1k of goods without tax (excluding cars which seem to be exempt). Talk about a mess
No. It is not just you. The whole thing is a mess. The complexity, volatility and inconsistencies of the British system (which actively encourages 'legitimate' tax evasion on a massive scale via our 'world class' network of tax dodger islands) and lack of oversight is ridiculous, counterproductive and cannot/is not enforced for the benefit of the public good. The ISA debate is, in my opinion, like picking a scab after a car cash. It will look slightly better in the short term after perhaps a little extra blood, potentially introduce another unintended weakness/infection in the system and actually misses the entire point that it is less than 0.1% of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2023 14:42:56 GMT
I find the ISA limits all too low but then I don't believe in taxing capital gains.
interestingly nor do most people. Most people are not taxed on their main house's sale at inflated prices. They would not be happy with that being taxed. Every time we introduce another little get out of jail card we make simple tax more complicated
we are taxed when we earn and we are taxed when we spend, is it just me but then we have to introduce get out of jails, no tax on food, children's clothes, no tax if you earn too little.
every little get out of jail card means a job for a tax avoidance/evaision assistant and a distortion to the market.
If we have to tax stuff lets have one rate, rather than one for a charity, one for a business, one for an employee, one for self employed one for a partnership etc etc
latest nonsense is about getting the first £1k of dividend income at zero tax and you can sell £1k of goods without tax (excluding cars which seem to be exempt). Talk about a mess
And people "think" they can sell as much as they want on platforms like Ebay, Vinted etc tax free. I remember being told some time ago of a person visited by a nurse and she said "I hope this won't take too long I have eBay stuff to post" this was a person in receipt of benefits who saw it as ok that she was making £200-300 a week profit on eBay not paying tax and not declaring it as income to benefits people as it was a "hobby" . wasn't it in the 70's that a higher VAT rate on luxuries was introduced that was so badly thought out fridges were subject to the higher rate but yachts weren't No Keith, the VAT on yachts ensured the birth of the French yacht industry was a major success while the British yacht industry shut up shop. If you wanted to buy a yacht on the south coast in the 70s you merely caught the ferry to northern France and bought your yacht there, registered it there and sailed it home to the UK. I know because I watched it happen, the marina at Cherbourg was built primarily to house the "French" yachts the Brits had bought. Some of them were even made in the UK just sold in France, while others closed the factory in the UK and opened one in France
this country has been brought up on three lies
1) the NHS is/was the envy of the world 2) the British Civil Service is world beating (they never can overcome the prejudice of ministers no matter how many facts they offer)
3) the public railway system was world class (world class in a third world perhaps)
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,962
Likes: 1,680
|
Post by Steerpike on Jan 25, 2023 14:54:43 GMT
The ‘net dependency ratio’ is the highest on record, 54.2 per cent of individuals now live in households which receive more in benefits – including ‘benefits in kind such as health and education spending – than they paid in taxes.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 25, 2023 14:59:04 GMT
But how do you tax property fairly The problems start even earlier - how do you define that property value? We bought a house in 1998. We sold it in 2013, for nearly 4x purchase price. We bought this house in 2013. The previous owners had bought it in 1998. They had paid more than we did for the other house. We paid 2/3 of what we sold that previous house for. ... and there was a huge extension built in 2005ish... Current valuations? <shrug> Wouldn't surprise me if the values had closed. But it's simply impossible to say. Neither property is in any way identikit. Even Zoopla's wet-finger (multiply last known by local-ish index) gives a variance of ~30% for here, and I'd say was low going by the guesstimates for other local places, and what else is on the market. The variance is smaller on the other place, but still over 20%, and seems risibly high looking at what else is on the market round there. The only one in the town that fits the same broad-brush headline description is nearly twice the floor area, below the lower end of that Zoopla figure, and unsold for six months. So how often are you valuing every property in the country? I mean, the current official valuation date for England is a third of a century ago... A mere two decades in Wales. They're definitely overdue for a revaluation now, but how often will you be doing that in the future? What's the ongoing cost of that?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,045
Likes: 4,841
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 25, 2023 14:59:32 GMT
The ‘net dependency ratio’ is the highest on record, 54.2 per cent of individuals now live in households which receive more in benefits – including ‘benefits in kind such as health and education spending – than they paid in taxes. Both of those seem to be perfectly appropriate to me.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,641
Likes: 4,213
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 25, 2023 15:33:48 GMT
The ‘net dependency ratio’ is the highest on record, 54.2 per cent of individuals now live in households which receive more in benefits – including ‘benefits in kind such as health and education spending – than they paid in taxes. Anyone know how this compares with other EU countries?
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,889
Likes: 2,321
|
Post by keitha on Jan 25, 2023 15:40:34 GMT
The ‘net dependency ratio’ is the highest on record, 54.2 per cent of individuals now live in households which receive more in benefits – including ‘benefits in kind such as health and education spending – than they paid in taxes. the top 10% pay 60% of the tax lets look at real life examples Adrian earns £22,750 a year and pays £2000 tax 'Arry plays football and earns £100,000 a week £5,200,000 and pays (20% on 37,700, 40% on 112,300 and 45% on the rest ) £7540, £44,920, £2,272,500 a total of £2,324,960 leaving £2,875,040. but don't feel too bad for 'Arry as a percentage he will pay much less NI than Adrian, and will be able to use clever accountants to avoid paying the full tax due.
|
|