The death of the pension?

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[Tiggsy]

yes, because people are stupid.

[Ozzie Osmond]

You wait...

In about 10 minutes time George Osbourne will pop up announcing, "ISA's are being abused as a tax-avoidance sheme for the rich" and slap a cap on the amount you can have have in one.

Which, like the pensions fiasco, is nonsense because Gordon Brown's tax grabs included a tax on ISA's when he stopped recalim of the dividend tax credit.

Mind you, Conservative policy in the 1990s was to abolish Stamp Duty. Now they are enthusiastically increasing that ridiculous "moving house in the South East tax".

[crankedup]

Robert Maxwell was the first corporate thief to stick his greasy hands into workers pensions IIRC. That was topped by Thatcher declaring Companies would be permitted to take 'Pension Holidays', yet another brilliant Thatcher policy

[Tiggsy]

Right, because Maxwell stealing from his fund is all part and parcel of the current issue.

You might as well say Diana crashing her Merc is why large engined cars arent as popular right now.

[Zod]

Ozzie Osmond said:

In about 10 minutes time George Osbourne will pop up announcing, "ISA's are being abused as a tax-avoidance sheme for the rich" and slap a cap on the amount you can have have in one.

Er, there already is a cap on ISAs.

They wouldn't be floundering around like this if there weren't so many morons out there complaining that the rich avoid tax. Tax avoidance is legal. That's all there is to it.

[Tiggsy]

Zod said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

In about 10 minutes time George Osbourne will pop up announcing, "ISA's are being abused as a tax-avoidance sheme for the rich" and slap a cap on the amount you can have have in one.

Er, there already is a cap on ISAs.

They wouldn't be floundering around like this if there weren't so many morons out there complaining that the rich avoid tax. Tax avoidance is legal. That's all there is to it.

I see people every day who moan that the rich get away with X,Y,Z - they then moan their pension is rubbish....they then explain they started it in 1990 and havent reviewed it since. Funnily enough, rich people do review their investments, maybe one reason they are rich.

[DoubleSix]

Zod said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

In about 10 minutes time George Osbourne will pop up announcing, "ISA's are being abused as a tax-avoidance sheme for the rich" and slap a cap on the amount you can have have in one.

Er, there already is a cap on ISAs.

They wouldn't be floundering around like this if there weren't so many morons out there complaining that the rich avoid tax. Tax avoidance is legal. That's all there is to it.

No there isn't. There is a maximum annual allowance. No 'cap' on how much one can accumulate over the life of the ISA.

[Tiggsy]

DoubleSix said:

Zod said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

In about 10 minutes time George Osbourne will pop up announcing, "ISA's are being abused as a tax-avoidance sheme for the rich" and slap a cap on the amount you can have have in one.

Er, there already is a cap on ISAs.

They wouldn't be floundering around like this if there weren't so many morons out there complaining that the rich avoid tax. Tax avoidance is legal. That's all there is to it.

No there isn't. There is a maximum annual allowance. No 'cap' on how much one can accumulate over the life of the ISA.

Hence those who max'd out from PEPs onwards have HUGE tax free funds - a cap wouldnt actually be a daft idea if it werent so impossible to implement.

[Blue62]

Tiggsy said:

Hence those who max'd out from PEPs onwards have HUGE tax free funds - a cap wouldnt actually be a daft idea if it werent so impossible to implement.

Why would a cap be a good idea? If I have worked hard and saved throughout my working life, invested in ISA's (PEPS) each year to protect me and my family, instead of just 'spending' that money, why is it alright if I'm penalised retrospectively?

[DoubleSix]

Tiggsy said:

DoubleSix said:

Zod said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

In about 10 minutes time George Osbourne will pop up announcing, "ISA's are being abused as a tax-avoidance sheme for the rich" and slap a cap on the amount you can have have in one.

Er, there already is a cap on ISAs.

They wouldn't be floundering around like this if there weren't so many morons out there complaining that the rich avoid tax. Tax avoidance is legal. That's all there is to it.

No there isn't. There is a maximum annual allowance. No 'cap' on how much one can accumulate over the life of the ISA.

Hence those who max'd out from PEPs onwards have HUGE tax free funds - a cap wouldnt actually be a daft idea if it werent so impossible to implement.

ISA's are one of the last remaining unfettered tax reliefs we can enjoy. It would be a great shame if a cap were imposed imo.

[Tiggsy]

Blue62 said:

Why would a cap be a good idea? If I have worked hard and saved throughout my working life, invested in ISA's (PEPS) each year to protect me and my family, instead of just 'spending' that money, why is it alright if I'm penalised retrospectively?

Tax isn't penalising, it's taxing. The point of PEPs was not to let people accrue huge sums in tax free shelters - IMO, if it was even possible (which it isnt) I'd cap it at £650k. Again, couldnt possibly be implemented.

[DoubleSix]

Tiggsy said:

Blue62 said:

Why would a cap be a good idea? If I have worked hard and saved throughout my working life, invested in ISA's (PEPS) each year to protect me and my family, instead of just 'spending' that money, why is it alright if I'm penalised retrospectively?

Tax isn't penalising, it's taxing. The point of PEPs was not to let people accrue huge sums in tax free shelters - IMO, if it was even possible (which it isnt) I'd cap it at £650k. Again, couldnt possibly be implemented.

PEPs had limits too.... the only reason some have accrued 'huge amounts' is through shrewd investment and/or taking on significant amounts of risk - for which they are perfectly entitled to the rewards.

[whoami]

Tiggsy said:

Blue62 said:

Why would a cap be a good idea? If I have worked hard and saved throughout my working life, invested in ISA's (PEPS) each year to protect me and my family, instead of just 'spending' that money, why is it alright if I'm penalised retrospectively?

Tax isn't penalising, it's taxing. The point of PEPs was not to let people accrue huge sums in tax free shelters - IMO, if it was even possible (which it isnt) I'd cap it at £650k. Again, couldnt possibly be implemented.

Why £650K?

[DoubleSix]

DoubleSix said:

Tiggsy said:

Blue62 said:

Why would a cap be a good idea? If I have worked hard and saved throughout my working life, invested in ISA's (PEPS) each year to protect me and my family, instead of just 'spending' that money, why is it alright if I'm penalised retrospectively?

Tax isn't penalising, it's taxing. The point of PEPs was not to let people accrue huge sums in tax free shelters - IMO, if it was even possible (which it isnt) I'd cap it at £650k. Again, couldnt possibly be implemented.

PEPs had limits too.... the only reason some have accrued 'huge amounts' is through shrewd investment and/or taking on significant amounts of risk - for which they are perfectly entitled to the rewards.

It's worth remembering that anyone using their ISA for income bearing investments is still paying 10% tax at source so Osbourne isn't totally excluded from the party.

[Tiggsy]

DoubleSix said:

Tiggsy said:

Blue62 said:

Why would a cap be a good idea? If I have worked hard and saved throughout my working life, invested in ISA's (PEPS) each year to protect me and my family, instead of just 'spending' that money, why is it alright if I'm penalised retrospectively?

Tax isn't penalising, it's taxing. The point of PEPs was not to let people accrue huge sums in tax free shelters - IMO, if it was even possible (which it isnt) I'd cap it at £650k. Again, couldnt possibly be implemented.

PEPs had limits too.... the only reason some have accrued 'huge amounts' is through shrewd investment and/or taking on significant amounts of risk - for which they are perfectly entitled to the rewards.

I know how people have done it - I've advised many of them. I have lots of clients with vast ISA funds. I see no reason to provide tax free shelters for sums over a certain size when obtained via PEP/ISA/TESSA...other than, you couldnt do it - logistically.

[DoubleSix]

Tiggsy said:

DoubleSix said:

Tiggsy said:

Blue62 said:

Why would a cap be a good idea? If I have worked hard and saved throughout my working life, invested in ISA's (PEPS) each year to protect me and my family, instead of just 'spending' that money, why is it alright if I'm penalised retrospectively?

Tax isn't penalising, it's taxing. The point of PEPs was not to let people accrue huge sums in tax free shelters - IMO, if it was even possible (which it isnt) I'd cap it at £650k. Again, couldnt possibly be implemented.

PEPs had limits too.... the only reason some have accrued 'huge amounts' is through shrewd investment and/or taking on significant amounts of risk - for which they are perfectly entitled to the rewards.

I know how people have done it - I've advised many of them. I have lots of clients with vast ISA funds. I see no reason to provide tax free shelters for sums over a certain size when obtained via PEP/ISA/TESSA...other than, you couldnt do it - logistically.

Well considering you 'know how people have done it' I am surpised you are taking the stance you have. In addition, you are yet to put forward any compelling reasons for your view point.

It's not as if we are awash with tax breaks here in the UK.

[Tiggsy]

Just my gut feel on the subject and always has been. When PEPs came in the idea was to encourage Joe Bloggs into share ownership (something new to most people at the time)...thats why the £6k limit. IMO they should have introduced them with a cap at the time because it was obvious people with means would just fund £12k per couple every year - 20 years on they now have funds which are far removed from the original point of PEPs.

Hey, I dont stay awake worrying about it! All my clients do it and I make a lot from the funds they have accrued.....it's just something that, if they made a change, I'd think "yep, fair eneough"

[Blue62]

Tiggsy said:

Tax isn't penalising, it's taxing. The point of PEPs was not to let people accrue huge sums in tax free shelters - IMO, if it was even possible (which it isnt) I'd cap it at £650k. Again, couldnt possibly be implemented.

I accept that the limit would be central to any argument here, but the contribution limit would probably make the sort of number you're talking about irrelevant in any event. A retrospective tax does feel like a penalty, regardless of what you say. The same has happend with SIPS and SSAS when restrictions were announced along with age limits, which forced many of us to review and re-think strategies which were based around an agreed set of rules. Regardless, I think it's unfair when legislation is introduced retrospectively that affects ordinairy people who have planned and saved towards retirement.

[Tiggsy]

Blue62 said:

Tiggsy said:

Tax isn't penalising, it's taxing. The point of PEPs was not to let people accrue huge sums in tax free shelters - IMO, if it was even possible (which it isnt) I'd cap it at £650k. Again, couldnt possibly be implemented.

I accept that the limit would be central to any argument here, but the contribution limit would probably make the sort of number you're talking about irrelevant in any event. A retrospective tax does feel like a penalty, regardless of what you say. The same has happend with SIPS and SSAS when restrictions were announced along with age limits, which forced many of us to review and re-think strategies which were based around an agreed set of rules. Regardless, I think it's unfair when legislation is introduced retrospectively that affects ordinairy people who have planned and saved towards retirement.

Sure, like I say - could never happen. In an ideal world (in my world) they'd have cap'd it at £500k or similar in 1992.