Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The 2014 Budget
Comments
-
,rananegra said:My partner's uncle retired a few years back with a hefty pot from well paid work in a decent private employer. Everything was fine until one day he couldn't come to a family thing as his shares had gone down. He died a couple of years ago and I cleared part of the house. He was an intelligent man. I found pages and pages of notes with people with English names and Spanish numbers and it was obvious he'd been scammed by boiler rooms. I can't tell for sure but its my belief that being robbed like this contributed to his early death.
I think there will be a lot more like that. Salesmen are very persuasive. I'm all for letting people take their own choices, but unless scammers, both legal and illegal, are clamped down on this will end up being an enormous boost for them.
Did you know that according to thursdays daily mirror Bromley is known as the capital for british based boiler room scams .0 -
Henry Irving at it again. Hmmmmm.fossdeneboy said:
,rananegra said:My partner's uncle retired a few years back with a hefty pot from well paid work in a decent private employer. Everything was fine until one day he couldn't come to a family thing as his shares had gone down. He died a couple of years ago and I cleared part of the house. He was an intelligent man. I found pages and pages of notes with people with English names and Spanish numbers and it was obvious he'd been scammed by boiler rooms. I can't tell for sure but its my belief that being robbed like this contributed to his early death.
I think there will be a lot more like that. Salesmen are very persuasive. I'm all for letting people take their own choices, but unless scammers, both legal and illegal, are clamped down on this will end up being an enormous boost for them.
Did you know that according to thursdays daily mirror Bromley is known as the capital for british based boiler room scams .0 -
You couldn't make it up.C.Walsh'sLoveChild said:.
0 -
It will probably fuel a house price inflation in the SE so pricing more first-time buyers out of the market. Where's the sense in that?cafcfan said:The pension move is quite clever. First if people draw down the income then (some) tax becomes payable. Second, the pensioners get control of their capital. If it's invested to produce an income then the Govt. will benefit from the inheritance tax in due course.
Double-bubble.
Yesterday's share price moves tell you everything you need to know. Hargreaves Lansdown - the UK's largest provider of investment services up 14.5%; Legal & General - a provider of annuities down 8.5%.0 -
Pensioners and those soon to be so were targeted because they vote more than the young or poor. Purely a budget with the election just around the corner.AFKABartram said:Seemed on the surface a bold and accomodating budget with some interesting new changes, though little disappointed there seemed little there targeting families, particularly low income ones.
Still, its good to know you can now save 15k a.year tax free.......0 -
That 15k is per annum. Doesn't help you much, helps people with 15 k per year to squirrel away.Huskaris said:I personally liked the budget as someone on a low income who is aiming to save a bit, the ISA amount of 15k gives me something to aim for (over quite a few years I hasten to add) and the income tax adjustments will save me over £100 a year next year.
I am not well off, and I have been helped by the conservatives.
I think nothing annoys Ed Milliband more than the fact that the Tories are doing a much better job with the economy than he ever could.
The Tories have done an awful job with the economy. Choked off the recovery we were in in 2010 for a load of ideological cuts; presided over the biggest fall in living standards since the 1870s; missed all their targets for deficit reduction; even the new jobs since they came in are mostly low paid and not secure,e.g. zero hour contracts.3 -
I agree - did people think we would continuously be in recession? - look back at any depressions and see they end at some point. This one has gone on longer than it should have and the recovery we have is still a fragile one and everybody bar the rich are considerably worse off and are likely to stay that way for some time to come. This has hindered the recovery btw - the tories have stated it is about giving rich people more money to get us out of the mess, but ordinary working people feeling able to spend would have been fairer and brought a quicker result.AddicksAddict said:
That 15k is per annum. Doesn't help you much, helps people with 15 k per year to squirrel away.Huskaris said:I personally liked the budget as someone on a low income who is aiming to save a bit, the ISA amount of 15k gives me something to aim for (over quite a few years I hasten to add) and the income tax adjustments will save me over £100 a year next year.
I am not well off, and I have been helped by the conservatives.
I think nothing annoys Ed Milliband more than the fact that the Tories are doing a much better job with the economy than he ever could.
The Tories have done an awful job with the economy. Choked off the recovery we were in in 2010 for a load of ideological cuts; presided over the biggest fall in living standards since the 1870s; missed all their targets for deficit reduction; even the new jobs since they came in are mostly low paid and not secure,e.g. zero hour contracts.
Then there is the old chesnut of labour causing this mess - well did they cause the same mess in America and France, Spain,Italy etc... ? They made a big error in deregulation of the banks and they have admitted this, but he tories wanted to give the banks even more freedom!
The thing I think the Labour government got wrong was allowing the public sector to expand too much after they won the election. They sort of worked this out for themselves by 2004/5 ish and started to cut back. But having said all that, debt was decreasing from what it was under the tory goverment as the economy was strong and revenues higher. The deficit became this big issue because revenues dropped.
Alistair Darling was brilliant in his reaction to the crisis and his interventions were lauded by America as leading the world. The analogy I would use to describe the way Silver Spoon Osborne has dealt with the crisis is by him removing the steering wheel from his car on a windy bumpy road. So we have moved forwards but gone over all the bumps and it has taken us longer. As the crow flies the route has been shorter, but that hasn't compensated for the delay the lack of control has caused. Osborne has totaly ignored promoting growth as an option, but the more money you have coming in, the less of a problem your debt becomes.1 -
I'm not disputing what you say but the previous Govt. did what precisely?AddicksAddict said:
That 15k is per annum. Doesn't help you much, helps people with 15 k per year to squirrel away.Huskaris said:I personally liked the budget as someone on a low income who is aiming to save a bit, the ISA amount of 15k gives me something to aim for (over quite a few years I hasten to add) and the income tax adjustments will save me over £100 a year next year.
I am not well off, and I have been helped by the conservatives.
I think nothing annoys Ed Milliband more than the fact that the Tories are doing a much better job with the economy than he ever could.
The Tories have done an awful job with the economy. Choked off the recovery we were in in 2010 for a load of ideological cuts; presided over the biggest fall in living standards since the 1870s; missed all their targets for deficit reduction; even the new jobs since they came in are mostly low paid and not secure,e.g. zero hour contracts.
Here's a list I found of New Labour's stealth taxes from their first 7 years, many of which hit the less well-off:
July 1997
1 • Mortgage Interest Tax Relief At Source cut from 15% to 10%
2 • Dividend Tax Credits for pension schemes abolished
3 • Income tax relief on health insurance abolished
4 • Insurance Premium Tax extended to some health insurance
5 • Road Fuel Tax escalator up to 6%
6 • Vehicle Excise Duty increased
7 • Tobacco duty escalator increased to 5%
8 • Stamp Duty raised to 2%
9 • Carry back of Corp. Tax losses limited to 1 year
10 • Windfall tax on utilities
March 1998
11 • Tax relief for the married couple's allowance cut to 10%
12 • Top rate of Insurance Premium Tax extended to travel insurance
13 • Exceptional increase in tobacco & alcohol duties
14 • Duties on casinos & gaming machines raised
15 • Road Fuel Tax escalator increase brought forward
16 • Tax on company cars increased
17 • Tax relief on foreign earnings abolished
18 • Tax concessions for certain professions abolished
19 • Capital gains tax imposed on certain non-residents
20 • Restriction of Capital Gains Tax relief on reinvestment
21 • Corp. tax payments on account brought forward
22 • Stamp duty increased again
23 • Certain hydrocarbon duties increased
24 • Additional diesel duties introduced
25 • Landfill Tax increased
26 • Double tax credits on certain dividends restricted
March 1999
27 • NI Contributions earning limit raised
28 • NI Contributions for self-employed increased
29 • Tax relief of Married Couple's Allowance abolished
30 • MIRAS abolished
31 • Self-employed contractors to pay NI & income tax as if employees
32 • Company car business mileage discount limited
33 • Double escalator on tobacco duties
34 • Insurance Premium Tax increased to 5%
35 • Vocational training relief abolished
36 • Employer NI Contribution base broadened to include all benefits in kind
37 • VAT on some banking services increased
38 • Tax on reverse premiums paid to tenants by landlords introduced
39 • Duty on domestic fuel oils up
40 • Vehicle Excise Duty for lorries increased
41 • Landfill tax escalator introduced
42 • Stamp Duty rates raised again to 2.5/3.5%
March 2000
43 • Tobacco duties increased above inflation
44 • Stamp duty raised for 4th time, scope of duty extended
45 • Extra taxation of life assurance companies
46 • Rules on tax havens tightened up
47 • Company car taxes raised
2001
The Chancellor gives the nation a year off – no new stealth taxes!
April 2002
48 • Personal tax allowances frozen
49 • National Insurance threshold frozen
50 • NI Contributions for employers raised
51 • NI Contributions for employees raised
52 • NI Contributions for self-employed raised
53 • North Sea taxation increased
54 • Duty on some alcoholic drinks raised
55 • Stamp duty thresholds frozen
56 • Tax relief on investment in film industy restricted
57 • Rules on corporate debt tightened
58 • Nil-rate threshold for inheritance tax raised by less than the rate of inflation
April 2003
59 • VAT imposed on electronically supplied services
60 • Domestic staff on £89/week to pay NI & income tax, employers to pay NI
61 • Betting duty increases
62 • Tax on red diesel and fuel oil increased
63 • Anti-tax haven rules tightened to cover more UK firms with Irish subsidiaries
64 • Vehicle excise duty raised
65 • Personal tax allowances frozen again
July, 2003
66 • £35 added to all fines and £3 added to the cost of a home insurance policy
September, 2003
67 • Price of petrol raised 7p per gallon (with the VAT)
October, 2003
68 • Up to 8 times increase in the stamp duty on leases for retail premises
69 • Airport Tax doubled
December, 2003
70 • 40% extra Council Tax on second homes.
January, 2004
71 • £60 per day fine for late submission of self-assessment income tax forms
72 • Traffic wardens to receive powers to impose fines for a whole bunch of offences to keep poor people off the roads. The offences will include parking more than 19 inches from the kerb (£100) and dithering by people who are lost over, and who don't know whether to make a turn or keep straight on
73 • A 'Victims Fund' surcharge fine on everyone who passes through the courts. £5 for speeding up to £30 for murder.
74 • Legal Aid for the middle classes abolished
February, 2004
75 • £40 per week charge for formerly free nursery places
76 • £200 per year charge for places on formerly free school buses
77 • £250 per hour charge from the fire brigade for non-fire-related call-outs, e.g. clearing up after road accidents and rescuing pussy cats from trees
March, 2004
78 • £550 tax rise (at standard rate) for people using a company van or people-carrier out of work time
79 • Council Tax will rise at least 7.4% next year (according to the Budget)
80 • The tax incentive for owner-operator small businesses to become companies abolished
81 • Tax on cross-border payments for goods and services between multi-divisional companies extended to transactions within the UK
82 • Tax on trusts up from 34% to 40%
83 • Duty on red diesel up 1p/litre above inflation (57% rise)
84 • Duty on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) used as fuel up 1p/litre above inflation (45% rise)
85 • Personal allowances for taxpayers under 65 frozen
April 2004
86 • PEPs and ISAs containing shares lose their tax break on dividends and the annual ISA allowance cut by £2,000 to £5,000
87 • The 100% tax allowance for small businesses & self-employed on new computer/advanced telephone equipment cut to 50% for 2004/5 tax year
88 • Passports – to cost twice as much as the present price of £42
89 • £100 per year 'lighthouse tax' on small boats over 8 metres long.
May 2004
90 • Council Tax bills to rise a further £110 in the affected areas to pay for regional assemblies
2 -
But people were not worse off - the conservative lines is to throw facts like these out there (ably aided by their press baron mates) and not reflect the benefits increasing incomes provided in a booming economy. In the years you have stated, the country and its people were doing well thank you very much.
This is the problem the tories will have at the next election - everybody knows in 2000-2004 things were not bad but you are trying to tell us they were. At the next election, everybody will know they are still skint and struggling financialy, but the tories will tell them they are not. In a year's time people will be expecting this recovery to have given them more benefits than it will have.1 -
What Labour did or didn't do between 2000 & 2004 doesn't alter what MuttleyCAFC pointed out in the post before yours. Darling had reacted to the crisis and our economy was growing. That growth was stopped by the Gideot's ideological cuts in the name of deficit reduction. As lots of people pointed out, shrinking the economy is a bad way of cutting a deficit.cafcfan said:
I'm not disputing what you say but the previous Govt. did what precisely?AddicksAddict said:
That 15k is per annum. Doesn't help you much, helps people with 15 k per year to squirrel away.Huskaris said:I personally liked the budget as someone on a low income who is aiming to save a bit, the ISA amount of 15k gives me something to aim for (over quite a few years I hasten to add) and the income tax adjustments will save me over £100 a year next year.
I am not well off, and I have been helped by the conservatives.
I think nothing annoys Ed Milliband more than the fact that the Tories are doing a much better job with the economy than he ever could.
The Tories have done an awful job with the economy. Choked off the recovery we were in in 2010 for a load of ideological cuts; presided over the biggest fall in living standards since the 1870s; missed all their targets for deficit reduction; even the new jobs since they came in are mostly low paid and not secure,e.g. zero hour contracts.
Here's a list I found of New Labour's stealth taxes from their first 7 years, many of which hit the less well-off:
July 1997
1 • Mortgage Interest Tax Relief At Source cut from 15% to 10%
2 • Dividend Tax Credits for pension schemes abolished
3 • Income tax relief on health insurance abolished
4 • Insurance Premium Tax extended to some health insurance
5 • Road Fuel Tax escalator up to 6%
6 • Vehicle Excise Duty increased
7 • Tobacco duty escalator increased to 5%
8 • Stamp Duty raised to 2%
9 • Carry back of Corp. Tax losses limited to 1 year
10 • Windfall tax on utilities
March 1998
11 • Tax relief for the married couple's allowance cut to 10%
12 • Top rate of Insurance Premium Tax extended to travel insurance
13 • Exceptional increase in tobacco & alcohol duties
14 • Duties on casinos & gaming machines raised
15 • Road Fuel Tax escalator increase brought forward
16 • Tax on company cars increased
17 • Tax relief on foreign earnings abolished
18 • Tax concessions for certain professions abolished
19 • Capital gains tax imposed on certain non-residents
20 • Restriction of Capital Gains Tax relief on reinvestment
21 • Corp. tax payments on account brought forward
22 • Stamp duty increased again
23 • Certain hydrocarbon duties increased
24 • Additional diesel duties introduced
25 • Landfill Tax increased
26 • Double tax credits on certain dividends restricted
March 1999
27 • NI Contributions earning limit raised
28 • NI Contributions for self-employed increased
29 • Tax relief of Married Couple's Allowance abolished
30 • MIRAS abolished
31 • Self-employed contractors to pay NI & income tax as if employees
32 • Company car business mileage discount limited
33 • Double escalator on tobacco duties
34 • Insurance Premium Tax increased to 5%
35 • Vocational training relief abolished
36 • Employer NI Contribution base broadened to include all benefits in kind
37 • VAT on some banking services increased
38 • Tax on reverse premiums paid to tenants by landlords introduced
39 • Duty on domestic fuel oils up
40 • Vehicle Excise Duty for lorries increased
41 • Landfill tax escalator introduced
42 • Stamp Duty rates raised again to 2.5/3.5%
March 2000
43 • Tobacco duties increased above inflation
44 • Stamp duty raised for 4th time, scope of duty extended
45 • Extra taxation of life assurance companies
46 • Rules on tax havens tightened up
47 • Company car taxes raised
2001
The Chancellor gives the nation a year off – no new stealth taxes!
April 2002
48 • Personal tax allowances frozen
49 • National Insurance threshold frozen
50 • NI Contributions for employers raised
51 • NI Contributions for employees raised
52 • NI Contributions for self-employed raised
53 • North Sea taxation increased
54 • Duty on some alcoholic drinks raised
55 • Stamp duty thresholds frozen
56 • Tax relief on investment in film industy restricted
57 • Rules on corporate debt tightened
58 • Nil-rate threshold for inheritance tax raised by less than the rate of inflation
April 2003
59 • VAT imposed on electronically supplied services
60 • Domestic staff on £89/week to pay NI & income tax, employers to pay NI
61 • Betting duty increases
62 • Tax on red diesel and fuel oil increased
63 • Anti-tax haven rules tightened to cover more UK firms with Irish subsidiaries
64 • Vehicle excise duty raised
65 • Personal tax allowances frozen again
July, 2003
66 • £35 added to all fines and £3 added to the cost of a home insurance policy
September, 2003
67 • Price of petrol raised 7p per gallon (with the VAT)
October, 2003
68 • Up to 8 times increase in the stamp duty on leases for retail premises
69 • Airport Tax doubled
December, 2003
70 • 40% extra Council Tax on second homes.
January, 2004
71 • £60 per day fine for late submission of self-assessment income tax forms
72 • Traffic wardens to receive powers to impose fines for a whole bunch of offences to keep poor people off the roads. The offences will include parking more than 19 inches from the kerb (£100) and dithering by people who are lost over, and who don't know whether to make a turn or keep straight on
73 • A 'Victims Fund' surcharge fine on everyone who passes through the courts. £5 for speeding up to £30 for murder.
74 • Legal Aid for the middle classes abolished
February, 2004
75 • £40 per week charge for formerly free nursery places
76 • £200 per year charge for places on formerly free school buses
77 • £250 per hour charge from the fire brigade for non-fire-related call-outs, e.g. clearing up after road accidents and rescuing pussy cats from trees
March, 2004
78 • £550 tax rise (at standard rate) for people using a company van or people-carrier out of work time
79 • Council Tax will rise at least 7.4% next year (according to the Budget)
80 • The tax incentive for owner-operator small businesses to become companies abolished
81 • Tax on cross-border payments for goods and services between multi-divisional companies extended to transactions within the UK
82 • Tax on trusts up from 34% to 40%
83 • Duty on red diesel up 1p/litre above inflation (57% rise)
84 • Duty on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) used as fuel up 1p/litre above inflation (45% rise)
85 • Personal allowances for taxpayers under 65 frozen
April 2004
86 • PEPs and ISAs containing shares lose their tax break on dividends and the annual ISA allowance cut by £2,000 to £5,000
87 • The 100% tax allowance for small businesses & self-employed on new computer/advanced telephone equipment cut to 50% for 2004/5 tax year
88 • Passports – to cost twice as much as the present price of £42
89 • £100 per year 'lighthouse tax' on small boats over 8 metres long.
May 2004
90 • Council Tax bills to rise a further £110 in the affected areas to pay for regional assemblies0 - Sponsored links:
-
The economy was inevitably going to shrink to some extent, but the approach from this Government has been reckless in the extreme and whilst austerity was unavoidable, promotion of growth was an extremely important lever that was/is being criminally under used.
Keynes knew what he was talking about - a whole town was named after him FFS. If we are going to respect him by doing that, why can't we learn from him? The country needed and still needs a growth strategy!0 -
But the ISA contribution doesn't need to come from your taxable income - for example a married couple who downsize and take say £100k in equity out of their home (free of capital gains tax for reasons I have never fully understood) can shelter it all in an ISA in the space of just four years.AddicksAddict said:
That 15k is per annum. Doesn't help you much, helps people with 15 k per year to squirrel away.Huskaris said:I personally liked the budget as someone on a low income who is aiming to save a bit, the ISA amount of 15k gives me something to aim for (over quite a few years I hasten to add) and the income tax adjustments will save me over £100 a year next year.
I am not well off, and I have been helped by the conservatives.
I think nothing annoys Ed Milliband more than the fact that the Tories are doing a much better job with the economy than he ever could.
The Tories have done an awful job with the economy. Choked off the recovery we were in in 2010 for a load of ideological cuts; presided over the biggest fall in living standards since the 1870s; missed all their targets for deficit reduction; even the new jobs since they came in are mostly low paid and not secure,e.g. zero hour contracts.0 -
Those berating the Tories need to remember the 'good times' against which the current lower living standards are being benchmarked were not real - they were fuelled by an unsuatainable rise in debt at every level (consumer, government, corporate etc.).
When you pull forward future consumption in this way, inevitably living standards will fall just as those that save and defer consumption should enjoy higher living standards in the future.
Of course the policies have been imperfect and there is a very reasonable debate to be had about whether the burden of austerity has been shared equitably, but the strong state of the UK economy today has been a very positive surprise given expectations just a couple of years ago.3 -
I happen to agree with you that this Govt. took precisely the wrong steps with the economy (although not with its efforts to reduce the budget deficit). Instead, it should have kept interest rates higher, keeping a lid on inflation. With lower inflation and net growth in their savings, millions of savers would have happily spent us out of recession. In the meantime, while mortgage payers would have had higher mortgage bills, this would have kept a lid on house price inflation while a higher value for the £ (brought about by the attractive interest rates for overseas investors) would have driven inflation even lower thus partially offsetting higher mortgage costs. In addition, people would have been less miserable with skimpy pay rises if inflation was low too.MuttleyCAFC said:The economy was inevitably going to shrink to some extent, but the approach from this Government has been reckless in the extreme and whilst austerity was unavoidable, promotion of growth was an extremely important lever that was/is being criminally under used.
As for promotion of growth, well, I said on another thread ages ago that never-ending growth is a complete impossibility. No politician ever mentions this to voters. There will always be peaks and troughs. (The next trough will probably be caused by the debt crisis developing in China - assuming we are not actually going to be at war with Russia.)
The important thing is that, during the good years, politicians choose wisely (like they did in Norway for example) and ensure that they are "prudent" (remember that word?). Labour made a very serious mistake indeed in not running a budget surplus during those times: instead opting to piss away the money.
There seems to be a slight possibility that even the dullard Edward Balls, is coming round to realising what a complete screw up New Labour made.3 -
Not that I disagree with the assessment that the current Govt's handling of the situation has been flawed but higher interest rates would not have kept a lid on inflation. Furthermore, the paradox of thrift is a proven concept that people spend more when they're saving less, not the opposite. Investment and borrowing are growth factors in the national consumption function, therefore lower interest rates will boost both of these factors. This is why the BoE sets interest rates as one of its goals is to keep the level of economical activity consistent, rather than setting interest rates for political purposes, which is why it would be incredibly reckless for government's to have this power (eg a government would ramp interest rates up in an election year to guarantee votes).cafcfan said:
I happen to agree with you that this Govt. took precisely the wrong steps with the economy (although not with its efforts to reduce the budget deficit). Instead, it should have kept interest rates higher, keeping a lid on inflation. With lower inflation and net growth in their savings, millions of savers would have happily spent us out of recession. In the meantime, while mortgage payers would have had higher mortgage bills, this would have kept a lid on house price inflation while a higher value for the £ (brought about by the attractive interest rates for overseas investors) would have driven inflation even lower thus partially offsetting higher mortgage costs. In addition, people would have been less miserable with skimpy pay rises if inflation was low too.MuttleyCAFC said:The economy was inevitably going to shrink to some extent, but the approach from this Government has been reckless in the extreme and whilst austerity was unavoidable, promotion of growth was an extremely important lever that was/is being criminally under used.
A couple of other points- this has been a complete disaster for Labour. Instead of responding to any of the Budget measures, they have come out and told over-55s that they're too stupid to be trusted with their own money. Considering how important the grey vote is, this will cost them votes next year, especially if the Tories bring it back up in the GE campaign.
Secondly, Ed Miliband's response and speeches in the wake of the Budget has convinced me the man couldn't pass a Turing Test. His responses to questions are so robotic, rehearsed and completely irrelevant to the original question or the speech he was responding to, he sounds like a tape recorder stuck on repeat. His complete inability to think on the spot makes me wonder how he got this far in politics without someone noticing what a terrible politician he is. Well, we all know he is only there because of nepotism and the culture of jobs for the boys and favouritism within the Labour party but you think someone might have noticed by now that the man isn't fit to man a whelk stand, let alone the party of opposition?1 -
Bournemouth Addick said:
Where do I sign up and who is going to pay for them?Huskaris said:
The next budget will win the Tories the next election....newyorkaddick said:
I tweeted at the time that the budget had just won the Tories the next election.Huskaris said:
I think nothing annoys Ed Milliband more than the fact that the Tories are doing a much better job with the economy than he ever could.
Prepare for lots and lots of goodies.
Thanks a lot for that, that's genuinely interesting, I had no idea 15k was an amount per year you could save, I thought that would be the total the pot could reach!cafcfan said:Huskaris - because I'm a sad git - I've done some more research on this and the maximum contributions since PEPs were first introduce total £200,560 per person. Compound growth on those contributions at 7% per year for a couple would make them ISA millionaires but the punter who has got up to £6mn must have made some seriously good investment decisions!
Cheers!0 -
...alternatively they raised legitimate concerns over the lack of thought given to the safeguarding issues involved in providing elderly people with easy access to potentially large amounts of cash?Fiiish said:
Instead of responding to any of the Budget measures, they have come out and told over-55s that they're too stupid to be trusted with their own money. Considering how important the grey vote is, this will cost them votes next year, especially if the Tories bring it back up in the GE campaign.cafcfan said:
I happen to agree with you that this Govt. took precisely the wrong steps with the economy (although not with its efforts to reduce the budget deficit). Instead, it should have kept interest rates higher, keeping a lid on inflation. With lower inflation and net growth in their savings, millions of savers would have happily spent us out of recession. In the meantime, while mortgage payers would have had higher mortgage bills, this would have kept a lid on house price inflation while a higher value for the £ (brought about by the attractive interest rates for overseas investors) would have driven inflation even lower thus partially offsetting higher mortgage costs. In addition, people would have been less miserable with skimpy pay rises if inflation was low too.MuttleyCAFC said:The economy was inevitably going to shrink to some extent, but the approach from this Government has been reckless in the extreme and whilst austerity was unavoidable, promotion of growth was an extremely important lever that was/is being criminally under used.
I'm well aware I'm labouring the point (no pun intended) but the protection of older people from ruthless con artists and chancers is something I have a lot of experience in and am passionate about.
Have a look at the link (everyone would be aware of this campaign if I had my way). I deny you to come back and tell me that the 100,000's of people like Jessica would be in a position to make proper, considered, educated and appropriate decision if asked to draw down her pension fund and invest it with some scumbag conman. And yes, there ARE many, many 1000's of Jessica's out there...
thinkjessica.com/main.htm
...gotta go, I'm at the bingo.0 -
I'm not saying there aren't legitimate concerns, just like you don't give 5 year olds their own child benefit because they won't spend it properly. But Labour didn't articulate their message in terms of legitimate concerns, their message was pensioners could not be trusted with their own money, not that there should be safeguards regarding conmen. Their entire post-budget message regarding pensions revolved around worries that all pensioners were stupid enough to piss away their savings on Ferraris and round the world holidays. Even if this was true, most voters don't appreciate being called stupid, especially the voting block which is most likely to vote!Bournemouth Addick said:
...alternatively they raised legitimate concerns over the lack of thought given to the safeguarding issues involved in providing elderly people with easy access to potentially large amounts of cash?Fiiish said:
Instead of responding to any of the Budget measures, they have come out and told over-55s that they're too stupid to be trusted with their own money. Considering how important the grey vote is, this will cost them votes next year, especially if the Tories bring it back up in the GE campaign.cafcfan said:
I happen to agree with you that this Govt. took precisely the wrong steps with the economy (although not with its efforts to reduce the budget deficit). Instead, it should have kept interest rates higher, keeping a lid on inflation. With lower inflation and net growth in their savings, millions of savers would have happily spent us out of recession. In the meantime, while mortgage payers would have had higher mortgage bills, this would have kept a lid on house price inflation while a higher value for the £ (brought about by the attractive interest rates for overseas investors) would have driven inflation even lower thus partially offsetting higher mortgage costs. In addition, people would have been less miserable with skimpy pay rises if inflation was low too.MuttleyCAFC said:The economy was inevitably going to shrink to some extent, but the approach from this Government has been reckless in the extreme and whilst austerity was unavoidable, promotion of growth was an extremely important lever that was/is being criminally under used.
I'm well aware I'm labouring the point (no pun intended) but the protection of older people from ruthless con artists and chancers is something I have a lot of experience in and am passionate about.
Have a look at the link (everyone would be aware of this campaign if I had my way). I deny you to come back and tell me that the 100,000's of people like Jessica would be in a position to make proper, considered, educated and appropriate decision if asked to draw down her pension fund and invest it with some scumbag conman. And yes, there ARE many, many 1000's of Jessica's out there...
thinkjessica.com/main.htm
...gotta go, I'm at the bingo.0 -
bbc
Labour will support government plans to overhaul pensions, the shadow work and pensions secretary has said.
Rachel Reeves told BBC Radio 4's Any Questions she supported the changes announced in Wednesday's Budget.0 -
Add that to the list of things that Labour initially opposed but will now support or will not reverse when in power. It's a long list...and politicians wonder why no one can tell the difference between LibLabCon!0
- Sponsored links:
-
I know plenty of people who I'd bet my own pension on having a spend up if offered the cash, with or without any help or advice on how to spend it. But you've made your mind up that whatever the opposition say you'll find fault with it so we'll have to agree to disagree. The bottom line is I sincerely hope I'm wrong and you're right and, against all the evidence and my own experience, we will in a year or twos time have a pensionably aged population who are now financially astute, educated and take a long term view.Fiiish said:
I'm not saying there aren't legitimate concerns, just like you don't give 5 year olds their own child benefit because they won't spend it properly. But Labour didn't articulate their message in terms of legitimate concerns, their message was pensioners could not be trusted with their own money, not that there should be safeguards regarding conmen. Their entire post-budget message regarding pensions revolved around worries that all pensioners were stupid enough to piss away their savings on Ferraris and round the world holidays. Even if this was true, most voters don't appreciate being called stupid, especially the voting block which is most likely to vote!Bournemouth Addick said:
...alternatively they raised legitimate concerns over the lack of thought given to the safeguarding issues involved in providing elderly people with easy access to potentially large amounts of cash?Fiiish said:
Instead of responding to any of the Budget measures, they have come out and told over-55s that they're too stupid to be trusted with their own money. Considering how important the grey vote is, this will cost them votes next year, especially if the Tories bring it back up in the GE campaign.cafcfan said:
I happen to agree with you that this Govt. took precisely the wrong steps with the economy (although not with its efforts to reduce the budget deficit). Instead, it should have kept interest rates higher, keeping a lid on inflation. With lower inflation and net growth in their savings, millions of savers would have happily spent us out of recession. In the meantime, while mortgage payers would have had higher mortgage bills, this would have kept a lid on house price inflation while a higher value for the £ (brought about by the attractive interest rates for overseas investors) would have driven inflation even lower thus partially offsetting higher mortgage costs. In addition, people would have been less miserable with skimpy pay rises if inflation was low too.MuttleyCAFC said:The economy was inevitably going to sto agink to some extent, but the approach from this Government has been reckless in the extreme and whilst austerity was unavoidable, promotion of growth was an extremely important lever that was/is being criminally under used.
I'm well aware I'm labouring the point (no pun intended) but the protection of older people from ruthless con artists and chancers is something I have a lot of experience in and am passionate about.
Have a look at the link (everyone would be aware of this campaign if I had my way). I deny you to come back and tell me that the 100,000's of people like Jessica would be in a position to make proper, considered, educated and appropriate decision if asked to draw down her pension fund and invest it with some scumbag conman. And yes, there ARE many, many 1000's of Jessica's out there...
thinkjessica.com/main.htm
...gotta go, I'm at the bingo.0 -
It was Mr Osborne who introduced the 'funding for lending' scheme in mid 2012. This gave banks money at an interest rate of 0.5% from the Bank of England. This reduced ISAs from around 3% to less than 1.5% as banks didn't need to attract savers cash.Huskaris said:I personally liked the budget as someone on a low income who is aiming to save a bit, the ISA amount of 15k gives me something to aim for (over quite a few years I hasten to add) and the income tax adjustments will save me over £100 a year next year.
I am not well off, and I have been helped by the conservatives.
I think nothing annoys Ed Milliband more than the fact that the Tories are doing a much better job with the economy than he ever could.
I wouldn't give Osborne much credit. He has increased ISA allowances to 15k, but that with very poor interest due to a policy he introduced himself very recently.
0 -
Strong state of the economy? We have had some quarters of growth, but the UK still has the largest deficit in all of Europe at 7% of GDP. The growth is being fueled by more borrowing - govt borrowing at £110 billion a year this year and around £100 billion next year, when Osborne said in 2010 it would be eliminated by 2015 - now 2019 apparently as it's put back each year. Germany eliminated theirs in 2012. France's is at around £50 billion a year - less than halve of ours. Osborne is pushing private borrowing again as he once again pumps up a housing bubble to fuel a feel-good factor that will crash soon enough as the UK never learns on that front ignoring the stability of housing in Germany that allows them to enjoy long term stability, growth and higher living standards, and growth is also occurring by people spending their savings increasing consumption.newyorkaddick said:Those berating the Tories need to remember the 'good times' against which the current lower living standards are being benchmarked were not real - they were fuelled by an unsuatainable rise in debt at every level (consumer, government, corporate etc.).
When you pull forward future consumption in this way, inevitably living standards will fall just as those that save and defer consumption should enjoy higher living standards in the future.
Of course the policies have been imperfect and there is a very reasonable debate to be had about whether the burden of austerity has been shared equitably, but the strong state of the UK economy today has been a very positive surprise given expectations just a couple of years ago.
I find it amusing people criticising Tory or Labour management of the economy whilst defending the other side. Both have been dire. Labour were running deficits even in periods of strong growth against the word of Keynes. And that growth was thanks to record debt and making the City of London the worlds premier financial city which saw a lot of dodgy cash heading in. A far cry from a balanced economy with strong manufacturing like Germany. They also removed much financial regulation and facilitated a system of feeble regulators who slept on the job, ignoring the few powers they had. The Tories supported those spending plans and de-regulation all the way when in opposition. Now they are in power and Osborne is fuelling housing bubbles and borrowing again, and has completely failed in eliminating the deficit - his primary aim on taking office - or rebalancing the economy.
2 -
But that's far from half the story. It's very true that the interest on cash ISAs is now very low indeed. But in my view cash ISAs should only be for "rainy day" money or the risk-adverse.SF-02 said:
This reduced ISAs from around 3% to less than 1.5% as banks didn't need to attract savers cash.Huskaris said:I personally liked the budget as someone on a low income who is aiming to save a bit, the ISA amount of 15k gives me something to aim for (over quite a few years I hasten to add) and the income tax adjustments will save me over £100 a year next year.
I am not well off, and I have been helped by the conservatives.
I think nothing annoys Ed Milliband more than the fact that the Tories are doing a much better job with the economy than he ever could.
I wouldn't give Osborne much credit. He has increased ISA allowances to 15k, but that with very poor interest due to a policy he introduced himself very recently.
It's quite easy to find a bog standard stocks & shares ISA, even today, that will give you a yield of 4.5% plus the prospect of tax-free capital growth. That is where the people who have done very well out of ISAs have put their money.
Because I'm dumb and a bit risk-adverse I went for the half cash/half stocks and shares option.
The increase in value of my cash ISAs (interst compounded) is pretty crap but my stocks & shares ISAs are now 190% of the total invested, are still yielding good money and the tax man can't get his hands on it - what's not to like?
In any event, with the changes now due on 1st July 2014, it will be possible to switch back into cash ISAs if the markets start getting twitchy or interest rates rise.0 -
Oops, there appears to be some drawbacks to the pensions proposals that the Government forgot about or conveniently neglected to mention:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/22/pension-reform-threat-social-care0 -
Itunes have had their Vat increased to 20%.0
-
To me, that's another reason why it is beneficial to allow pensioners unrestricted access to their pension (their own money).aliwibble said:Oops, there appears to be some drawbacks to the pensions proposals that the Government forgot about or conveniently neglected to mention:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/22/pension-reform-threat-social-care
Why should people be forced to call upon the taxpayer to fund their care costs (with little or no choice in the care provided) when they have assets in their pension fund that they could (and, for reasons of choice, perhaps would prefer to) access. And, vice versa, why should the taxpayer fund the care of people simply because pension rules preclude access to a potentially significant part of their savings?
It is still a matter of choice whether or not to take the funds out of the pension and (aside from the 25% tax free sum) that is still taxable at the marginal rate. It's not a given that people will pull it out in one go - leaving it in still enables you to enjoy tax-free returns. I imagine some might go further and require people to do so to fund their care rather than have the taxpayer fund it but, as far as I know, this has not been suggested.0 -
That's not new though is it? Any half-decent adviser should have been explaining to clients that taking out the whole of various small pension pots - value up to £10k each with a total not more than £30k (as they are currently entitled to do) would possibly have the effect of excluding them from any means-tested state benefits because they would then have capital available to them. You can also currently cash in 25% of larger pension pots which would have the same effect. Twas ever thus.aliwibble said:Oops, there appears to be some drawbacks to the pensions proposals that the Government forgot about or conveniently neglected to mention:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/22/pension-reform-threat-social-care
There are numerous examples of this, perhaps the most obvious situation apart from pensions is where people take equity release from their houses.
It's not the Govt.'s job to explain this to people really is it? It's not complicated - you've got capital assets you don't qualify for benefits!
It is though perhaps typical that the Grauniad should do a rubbish half-cock incomplete article which doesn't explain the existing position.2 -
I don't think we are particularly stupid, but we have been so badly stung by financial experts in the past, on three separate occasions, that we just don't trust anyone. Hubby has not acted on his pension yet and allowing us to get our hands on the cash will still leave us not knowing what to do. It will merely increase the number of people that we don't trust and who want to get their hands on our somewhat small pension pot. Not knowing when we are going to die leaves us all of a dither. But I do fear that there will be a 'spend it while you can, you might die tomorrow' sentiment which IMO will create spending problems for the future.1
-
stilladdicted said:
I don't think we are particularly stupid, but we have been so badly stung by financial experts in the past, on three separate occasions, that we just don't trust anyone. Hubby has not acted on his pension yet and allowing us to get our hands on the cash will still leave us not knowing what to do. It will merely increase the number of people that we don't trust and who want to get their hands on our somewhat small pension pot. Not knowing when we are going to die leaves us all of a dither. But I do fear that there will be a 'spend it while you can, you might die tomorrow' sentiment which IMO will create spending problems for the future.
Whilst I don't expect you to describe in detail your financial mishaps, I do find it hard to believe that you have been "stung" (your words) 3 times and none of it was your fault or not just one of those things. I have been in the financial services industry for over 25 years and can honestly say that the only real scandal or mis-selling during that time has been ppi by the banks and credit card companies.
Endowment policies may not be everybody cup of tea & I admit that there have been some badly performing ones - but for every one that may have missed its target figure I can show you one that would have given more than was needed.
Some Personal pensions may have had high charges or been stuck in poor performing managed funds, but I cant believe that over a 20 year period a policyholder didn't notice that. I'm am well aware that not everyone has the time or inclination to look at their pension statements but surely the consumer has to take some responsibility over their finances & to check to see how things are going from year to year. You don't expect to buy a pot plant and for it to grow without watering it for time to time - same goes for your savings & investments.
A lot of the problems in the past stem from the fact that the consumer did not want to have regular / annual meetings with an advisor (or insurance salesman) - if they did then a lot of these problems would have been spotted earlier and the funds switched around or the plan changed in some way long before it became a problem.
0
