The death of the pension?
Discussion
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".
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. It's not as if we are awash with tax breaks here in the UK.
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"
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"
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. 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. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff