Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Savings and Investments thread
Comments
-
I’m not very good at these type of cryptic clues that several posters excel at.golfaddick said:It just gets better and better.......
I've spent 35 years in the industry, ticking the boxes and following the rules around making sure clients understand risk.
And now Rachel Reeves wants to throw that all aside in the name of growing the economy.
This is going to be fun 🤔🙄
What has happened?
0 -
She's leaving the pittance you can make on ISAs alone for now but is scratching her head trying to work out why the economy is stagnant after plonking a NI rise on employers which has led to wages stagnating, job cuts and general uncertainty meaning less people spending money. Coupled with obscene energy prices making it harder and harder for people with a 2 up 2 down to spend on economy growy stuff let alone the more entrepreneurial to grow things. What she is planning is a more risky Stocks and shares savings product or 3 to encourage people away from safe and nice cash ISA products. If she raised CGT to at least the level it was people would take that money and probably drop it on the deposit for a new car, holiday, extension that sort of shit. I am talking a lot but its probably bollocks but it is how I see what's happened through my moronic financial eyesThreadKiller said:
I’m not very good at these type of cryptic clues that several posters excel at.golfaddick said:It just gets better and better.......
I've spent 35 years in the industry, ticking the boxes and following the rules around making sure clients understand risk.
And now Rachel Reeves wants to throw that all aside in the name of growing the economy.
This is going to be fun 🤔🙄
What has happened?1 -
Rachel Reeves has said that the risk warnings regarding investing into stocks & shares need to be relaxed. Says that the risk warnings frighten people & proper weight is not given to the benefits.ThreadKiller said:
I’m not very good at these type of cryptic clues that several posters excel at.golfaddick said:It just gets better and better.......
I've spent 35 years in the industry, ticking the boxes and following the rules around making sure clients understand risk.
And now Rachel Reeves wants to throw that all aside in the name of growing the economy.
This is going to be fun 🤔🙄
What has happened?
I dunno, maybe the FCA/FSA/SIB have been wrong all this time. Perhaps I shouldn't say that past performance is no indicator to the future & that last year's 10% gain will continue over the next 10 years. I mean, I'm all for going back 25 years and giving illustrations based on 12% & 10% growth...🙄.
3 -
Such a dangerous thing to reduce risk warnings on to be honest.golfaddick said:
Rachel Reeves has said that the risk warnings regarding investing into stocks & shares need to be relaxed. Says that the risk warnings frighten people & proper weight is not given to the benefits.ThreadKiller said:
I’m not very good at these type of cryptic clues that several posters excel at.golfaddick said:It just gets better and better.......
I've spent 35 years in the industry, ticking the boxes and following the rules around making sure clients understand risk.
And now Rachel Reeves wants to throw that all aside in the name of growing the economy.
This is going to be fun 🤔🙄
What has happened?
I dunno, maybe the FCA/FSA/SIB have been wrong all this time. Perhaps I shouldn't say that past performance is no indicator to the future & that last year's 10% gain will continue over the next 10 years. I mean, I'm all for going back 25 years and giving illustrations based on 12% & 10% growth...🙄.
Having said that, if it stops financial illiterates investing in crypto and makes them put it in the S&P 500 it'll probably cause them a lot less harm!
On tax, the first time I heard the idea of equalising CGT with income tax, I hated it, but if we are now going down the weird and wonderful politics of envy kind of policies like wealth taxes, I view CGT equalisation as the lesser of two evils (the CGT one would hit me, the wealth tax would not from all the idiotic policies I've heard...) I'm now actually starting to think it almost makes sense...0 -
Very dangerous in my view, don’t like it one bit. She’s making very broad assumptions that even if people do jump from cash to shares, they’ll invest in UK, I don’t think that’ll be the case anyway, people will also invest elsewhere.golfaddick said:
Rachel Reeves has said that the risk warnings regarding investing into stocks & shares need to be relaxed. Says that the risk warnings frighten people & proper weight is not given to the benefits.ThreadKiller said:
I’m not very good at these type of cryptic clues that several posters excel at.golfaddick said:It just gets better and better.......
I've spent 35 years in the industry, ticking the boxes and following the rules around making sure clients understand risk.
And now Rachel Reeves wants to throw that all aside in the name of growing the economy.
This is going to be fun 🤔🙄
What has happened?
I dunno, maybe the FCA/FSA/SIB have been wrong all this time. Perhaps I shouldn't say that past performance is no indicator to the future & that last year's 10% gain will continue over the next 10 years. I mean, I'm all for going back 25 years and giving illustrations based on 12% & 10% growth...🙄.5 -
I wonder if they will announce additional incentives for investing in the U.K.?Rob7Lee said:
Very dangerous in my view, don’t like it one bit. She’s making very broad assumptions that even if people do jump from cash to shares, they’ll invest in UK, I don’t think that’ll be the case anyway, people will also invest elsewhere.golfaddick said:
Rachel Reeves has said that the risk warnings regarding investing into stocks & shares need to be relaxed. Says that the risk warnings frighten people & proper weight is not given to the benefits.ThreadKiller said:
I’m not very good at these type of cryptic clues that several posters excel at.golfaddick said:It just gets better and better.......
I've spent 35 years in the industry, ticking the boxes and following the rules around making sure clients understand risk.
And now Rachel Reeves wants to throw that all aside in the name of growing the economy.
This is going to be fun 🤔🙄
What has happened?
I dunno, maybe the FCA/FSA/SIB have been wrong all this time. Perhaps I shouldn't say that past performance is no indicator to the future & that last year's 10% gain will continue over the next 10 years. I mean, I'm all for going back 25 years and giving illustrations based on 12% & 10% growth...🙄.I think it’s dangerous because I don’t believe the financial literacy amongst the general population is adequate for the Gov’t to be pushing a big transfer of wealth from savings to the stock market. The two outcomes are either i) disaster after tons of savers get wiped out from trying to invest without adequate warning of the risks, or, ii) people don’t just forget all of their reticence to invest their life savings in things they don’t fully understand just because a clearly desperate Chancellor says there’s nothing to worry about and there’s no real impact from this policy change.1 -
Need to increase education not reduce risk warnings.
S&S ISAs do have a low risk compared to trading and quite a few bank accounts don't pay any interest at all on their current account! You have to opt in to receive any or change accounts when the introductory deal is over.
Taxing the super wealthy is common sense. About time.3 -
'Naive' Do you honestly think they will stay in the UK to pay massive taxes.Friend Or Defoe said:Need to increase education not reduce risk warnings.
S&S ISAs do have a low risk compared to trading and quite a few bank accounts don't pay any interest at all on their current account! You have to opt in to receive any or change accounts when the introductory deal is over.
Taxing the super wealthy is common sense . About time.
This was tried out by Labour in the 70's and it back fired.0 -
You might be jealous of them, but they won't sit around to be taxed on their wealth, they'll go somewhere else.Friend Or Defoe said:Need to increase education not reduce risk warnings.
S&S ISAs do have a low risk compared to trading and quite a few bank accounts don't pay any interest at all on their current account! You have to opt in to receive any or change accounts when the introductory deal is over.
Taxing the super wealthy is common sense. About time.1 -
I'm sure the Duke of Westminster will up sticks! 😂
3 - Sponsored links:
-
Like the Rolling Stones did. Went to live in France & whilst there recorded one of their best albums I believe.Huskaris said:
You might be jealous of them, but they won't sit around to be taxed on their wealth, they'll go somewhere else.Friend Or Defoe said:Need to increase education not reduce risk warnings.
S&S ISAs do have a low risk compared to trading and quite a few bank accounts don't pay any interest at all on their current account! You have to opt in to receive any or change accounts when the introductory deal is over.
Taxing the super wealthy is common sense. About time.
0 -
I think the challenge remains for Joe Public is ‘gambling’ any amount in stocks and shares over a cash saving when it represents a relatively larger part of your disposable income and that you will need to spend it in on something in the medium term or even short term future.That’s a perceived gamble many can’t afford to lose.I think a better solution is to enhance the benefit / tax break for lower rate tax payers to save into pensions (or another new product akin to a LISA) where the short term market swings are less impactful over a longer horizon.The state pension is a big cost and the more we can do to get people making their own plans the better.It feels wrong the greater tax advantage lies with higher rate tax payers even if very many more are higher tax payers these days.1
-
Many already have. We have seen an exodus of millionaires recently.Huskaris said:
You might be jealous of them, but they won't sit around to be taxed on their wealth, they'll go somewhere else.Friend Or Defoe said:Need to increase education not reduce risk warnings.
S&S ISAs do have a low risk compared to trading and quite a few bank accounts don't pay any interest at all on their current account! You have to opt in to receive any or change accounts when the introductory deal is over.
Taxing the super wealthy is common sense. About time.1 -
Yes, although theirs was a different reason at the time. They had been very naive and very badly advised financially at the time. They had effectively spent the money they had earned so when theire tax bill came in they had no money to pay it. They fled the country to stay afloat. (that's their story anyway).golfaddick said:
Like the Rolling Stones did. Went to live in France & whilst there recorded one of their best albums I believe.Huskaris said:
You might be jealous of them, but they won't sit around to be taxed on their wealth, they'll go somewhere else.Friend Or Defoe said:Need to increase education not reduce risk warnings.
S&S ISAs do have a low risk compared to trading and quite a few bank accounts don't pay any interest at all on their current account! You have to opt in to receive any or change accounts when the introductory deal is over.
Taxing the super wealthy is common sense. About time.
Of course Jagger and Richards now spent most of their time in the US.0 -
France being a country that has a wealth tax.2
-
I'm no great fan of Rachel Reeves but she's highlighting an obvious truth. Parking your wealth in cash and telling yourself it's the safe option is childishly naive.3
-
But probably not when the Stones went there in the late 60's I believe when the top rate of tax here (a wealth tax?) was 97%!Friend Or Defoe said:France being a country that has a wealth tax.1 -
That wasn't a wealth tax, it was a 15% unearned income tax on top of a too high 83% (!!) income tax. It wasn't too fruitful due to various loop holes the wealthy can exploit. Jim Ratcliffe managed to avoid £4bn of tax.CafcWest said:
But probably not when the Stones went there in the late 60's I believe when the top rate of tax here (a wealth tax?) was 97%!Friend Or Defoe said:France being a country that has a wealth tax.0 -
I don’t believe that is true https://taxjustice.net/press/millionaire-exodus-did-not-occur-study-reveals/redman said:
Many already have. We have seen an exodus of millionaires recently.Huskaris said:
You might be jealous of them, but they won't sit around to be taxed on their wealth, they'll go somewhere else.Friend Or Defoe said:Need to increase education not reduce risk warnings.
S&S ISAs do have a low risk compared to trading and quite a few bank accounts don't pay any interest at all on their current account! You have to opt in to receive any or change accounts when the introductory deal is over.
Taxing the super wealthy is common sense. About time.4 -
In the mid 70’s income tax went to 83% on earned income and 98% on unearned (ie investment income). Believe those rates kicked in at about £25k which is roughly £125k in today’s money.CafcWest said:
But probably not when the Stones went there in the late 60's I believe when the top rate of tax here (a wealth tax?) was 97%!Friend Or Defoe said:France being a country that has a wealth tax.0 - Sponsored links:
-
As someone said......the public need to be made aware of the pros & cons of saving & investing.SantaClaus said:I'm no great fan of Rachel Reeves but she's highlighting an obvious truth. Parking your wealth in cash and telling yourself it's the safe option is childishly naive.
It's a difficult job trying to advise the public that their money might be better off being "invested" rather than being "saved". Lots of people were burned, or know someone who was burned, by the endowment scandal, pension miss-selling, Equitable Life etc etc.
I'm hoping to retire in a few years time. I don't want to be caught up in another Govenment "initiative" that when it backfires is left to take the blame.0 -
ChristRob7Lee said:
In the mid 70’s income tax went to 83% on earned income and 98% on unearned (ie investment income). Believe those rates kicked in at about £25k which is roughly £125k in today’s money.CafcWest said:
But probably not when the Stones went there in the late 60's I believe when the top rate of tax here (a wealth tax?) was 97%!Friend Or Defoe said:France being a country that has a wealth tax.0 -
And yet for all the media noise there are no firm figures to support the assertion, the FT- which carries articles creating this “exodus” story, admits it. And now HMRC tells us they dont know how much tax the super-rich pay https://on.ft.com/4kHQKwSHMRC does not know how much tax billionaires pay, say MPsredman said:
Many already have. We have seen an exodus of millionaires recently.Huskaris said:
You might be jealous of them, but they won't sit around to be taxed on their wealth, they'll go somewhere else.Friend Or Defoe said:Need to increase education not reduce risk warnings.
S&S ISAs do have a low risk compared to trading and quite a few bank accounts don't pay any interest at all on their current account! You have to opt in to receive any or change accounts when the introductory deal is over.
Taxing the super wealthy is common sense. About time.
5 -
I think the idea is that banks etc who already offer cash isas will push world tracker products, that have uk exposure. The world markets go up, this money gets re balanced into UK equities.Rob7Lee said:
Very dangerous in my view, don’t like it one bit. She’s making very broad assumptions that even if people do jump from cash to shares, they’ll invest in UK, I don’t think that’ll be the case anyway, people will also invest elsewhere.golfaddick said:
Rachel Reeves has said that the risk warnings regarding investing into stocks & shares need to be relaxed. Says that the risk warnings frighten people & proper weight is not given to the benefits.ThreadKiller said:
I’m not very good at these type of cryptic clues that several posters excel at.golfaddick said:It just gets better and better.......
I've spent 35 years in the industry, ticking the boxes and following the rules around making sure clients understand risk.
And now Rachel Reeves wants to throw that all aside in the name of growing the economy.
This is going to be fun 🤔🙄
What has happened?
I dunno, maybe the FCA/FSA/SIB have been wrong all this time. Perhaps I shouldn't say that past performance is no indicator to the future & that last year's 10% gain will continue over the next 10 years. I mean, I'm all for going back 25 years and giving illustrations based on 12% & 10% growth...🙄.
i agree that ideas like the British isa was ridiculous in forcing people to have unbalanced portfolios. I think this is a good medium.
Of course regulation is needed, but imo the FCA have been overkill for some time. If you’re a company serving uk customers all your marketing material must be at a child’s reading level, for instance. It’s something that is discouraging fintech companies from setting up here.
also welcome the BOE looking to replace uk faster payment system with something more efficient. The UKFP system is great for the consumer but only a handful of companies have access to it. Creating a system that fintechs can directly plug into themselves would encourage much more innovation.0 -
Nonsense, they're just using a VPNredman said:
Many already have. We have seen an exodus of millionaires recently.Huskaris said:
You might be jealous of them, but they won't sit around to be taxed on their wealth, they'll go somewhere else.Friend Or Defoe said:Need to increase education not reduce risk warnings.
S&S ISAs do have a low risk compared to trading and quite a few bank accounts don't pay any interest at all on their current account! You have to opt in to receive any or change accounts when the introductory deal is over.
Taxing the super wealthy is common sense. About time.
3 -
Do we know what this 'watered down' warning reads? No, didn't think so.0
-
I have a username!golfaddick said:
As someone said......the public need to be made aware of the pros & cons of saving & investing.SantaClaus said:I'm no great fan of Rachel Reeves but she's highlighting an obvious truth. Parking your wealth in cash and telling yourself it's the safe option is childishly naive.
It's a difficult job trying to advise the public that their money might be better off being "invested" rather than being "saved". Lots of people were burned, or know someone who was burned, by the endowment scandal, pension miss-selling, Equitable Life etc etc.
I'm hoping to retire in a few years time. I don't want to be caught up in another Govenment "initiative" that when it backfires is left to take the blame.4 -
I think the silence from Labour/Reeves/the Treasury on the effects of the non dom tax changes speaks volumes. If the policy had been successful in bringing in more revenue they'd have been shouting it from the rooftops.2
-
Well see my post above. Aside from the fact that its way too early to tell, since these people are not on PAYE monthly returns, HMRC have admitted they can’t tell us at any time. Which is IMO, a rather serious issue.SantaClaus said:I think the silence from Labour/Reeves/the Treasury on the effects of the non dom tax changes speaks volumes. If the policy had been successful in bringing in more revenue they'd have been shouting it from the rooftops.3 -
That might be true or it might be something that's been put out to spare the governments blushes. Neither would suprise me.0
