Savings and Investments thread

golfaddick said:

Diebythesword said:

Overall good things come out today about the uk. Growth higher than expected, one of the fastest growing economies in the g7, happy days. Long may it continue. 

GDP growth should be a lot higher in Q3. A heatwave summer should mean a lot more spent on UK holidays, bbqs & associated food along with copious amounts of ice cream 🍦. 

And oasis gigs 

redman said:

I have just read that banks are soon going to be limiting cash withdrawals for over 65's to £300 a day.
This could be terribly inconvenient at times and is just more random people trying to control lives. 
Is it legal? Age discrimination? 

What ? Is this a wind up?

PragueAddick said:

This morning‘s FT headline story:

Tax data allays fears of UK non-dom exodus

You did read the article? It’s inline with predictions, ie 25% of non dons with trusts have left, and that’s only based on payroll data (so doesn’t capture those not working/drawing a salary/pension). The effect won’t be really known until Jan 2027…….

blackpool72 said:

Bit late with this as I've just got back from holiday. 
While on holiday I had a notification that I'd won on the premium bonds. 
I couldn't check how much as I didn't have my pb  number with me.
Turns out I've won £700. My best ever win.
1 x £500
2 × £100
This is on a holding of £22.
Came at a good time as I'd spent more than I wanted on holiday. 

That's some return for £22 and three wins too. You couldn't get a pint and a burger at the Oval for that. 

Addick Addict said:

blackpool72 said:

Bit late with this as I've just got back from holiday. 
While on holiday I had a notification that I'd won on the premium bonds. 
I couldn't check how much as I didn't have my pb  number with me.
Turns out I've won £700. My best ever win.
1 x £500
2 × £100
This is on a holding of £22.
Came at a good time as I'd spent more than I wanted on holiday. 

That's some return for £22 and three wins too. You couldn't get a pint and a burger at the Oval for that. 

22k I meant to say.
You rascal you

Rob7Lee said:

PragueAddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

PragueAddick said:

This morning‘s FT headline story:

Tax data allays fears of UK non-dom exodus

You did read the article? It’s inline with predictions, ie 25% of non dons with trusts have left, and that’s only based on payroll data (so doesn’t capture those not working/drawing a salary/pension). The effect won’t be really known until Jan 2027…….

Prrlease. Of course I read it. That's where I get my morning news, audio the articles on the app. Far superior to the sadly diminished Amol Rajan show, once known as BBC R4's flagship Today programme. The point is, it's in line with Government predictions, the basis upon which Reeves made her decision. Not excitable reports from private consultants with vested interests "analysing" LinkedIn, which has been my issue all along. I don't claim to know the end result any better than you but that Henley Centre trash was being presented here as solidfoundations for what seem to me like pre-determined opinions. 

The data they have (which is a small subsection) is inline. It’s going to be some while (18 months) before anyone knows the outcome, until then it’s all fingers in the air really.

I think come October it’ll be broadly forgotten as we move onto the next tax change/take (my money is on IHT).

As in removing the tax free allowances or something else?

valleynick66 said:

Rob7Lee said:

PragueAddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

PragueAddick said:

This morning‘s FT headline story:

Tax data allays fears of UK non-dom exodus

You did read the article? It’s inline with predictions, ie 25% of non dons with trusts have left, and that’s only based on payroll data (so doesn’t capture those not working/drawing a salary/pension). The effect won’t be really known until Jan 2027…….

Prrlease. Of course I read it. That's where I get my morning news, audio the articles on the app. Far superior to the sadly diminished Amol Rajan show, once known as BBC R4's flagship Today programme. The point is, it's in line with Government predictions, the basis upon which Reeves made her decision. Not excitable reports from private consultants with vested interests "analysing" LinkedIn, which has been my issue all along. I don't claim to know the end result any better than you but that Henley Centre trash was being presented here as solidfoundations for what seem to me like pre-determined opinions. 

The data they have (which is a small subsection) is inline. It’s going to be some while (18 months) before anyone knows the outcome, until then it’s all fingers in the air really.

I think come October it’ll be broadly forgotten as we move onto the next tax change/take (my money is on IHT).

As in removing the tax free allowances or something else?

The tax free allowances has been the same for many years, so in many respects it reduces due to inflation. I’m sure when my mum died in 2008 it was best part of £300k then (£285k rings a bell).

there’s lots of speculation, I can see the 7 year rule being changed, they could remove the £175k house allowance for direct descendants.

i fear they may reduce the tax free allowance as its a very southern thing (in general) and those more affluent, the average couple in the UK doesn’t have over £1m, so will only be unpopular for a small % of the population and will raise a decent sum if it was say halved.

valleynick66 said:

golfaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

Rob7Lee said:

PragueAddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

PragueAddick said:

This morning‘s FT headline story:

Tax data allays fears of UK non-dom exodus

You did read the article? It’s inline with predictions, ie 25% of non dons with trusts have left, and that’s only based on payroll data (so doesn’t capture those not working/drawing a salary/pension). The effect won’t be really known until Jan 2027…….

Prrlease. Of course I read it. That's where I get my morning news, audio the articles on the app. Far superior to the sadly diminished Amol Rajan show, once known as BBC R4's flagship Today programme. The point is, it's in line with Government predictions, the basis upon which Reeves made her decision. Not excitable reports from private consultants with vested interests "analysing" LinkedIn, which has been my issue all along. I don't claim to know the end result any better than you but that Henley Centre trash was being presented here as solidfoundations for what seem to me like pre-determined opinions. 

The data they have (which is a small subsection) is inline. It’s going to be some while (18 months) before anyone knows the outcome, until then it’s all fingers in the air really.

I think come October it’ll be broadly forgotten as we move onto the next tax change/take (my money is on IHT).

As in removing the tax free allowances or something else?

Lots of speculation in the press over the last few days about changes to both IHT & CGT. When I say "speculation" it's more reasonable to say its info put out there by the Treasury to see what the public would accept....if very negative then expect row back like they did re the cap on the Tax-free lump sum. FWIW my money is on CGT rates to increase in line with income tax rates and the Gift Allowances in IHT to be changed/ reduced / abolished. However, changes to CGT & IHT in those measures arent't going to raise much revenue.....certainly nowhere near the £40bn needed to shore up the black hole. Still feel there might be a "biggie" announced on Budget Day (which has still not yet been announced exactly when it will be)

As an aside, I believe there are over 100 different reliefs available on IHT where different Chancellors have tinkered with it over the years. 

Yes I’ve seen those suggestions too. 

I can’t picture how the gifting change would work however. 

If I give my children x thousands whilst I live currently I have to suffer IHT (tapered) if I don’t survive 7 years. But if that’s withdrawn are they saying any money I give my children to spend in my lifetime can become taxable upon my death even if more than 7 years ago? I don’t see how you police that. 

Or maybe it’s the tapering which is withdrawn?

I suspect the tapering. Although that only applies if you gift more than £325k anyway as gifts prior to death are the first to be used against the tax free allowance. So if you gave £325k away 4 years before death there’s no taper, it just uses up the tax free allowance.

So is the feeling that tapering would be changed for future gifts or would include already given eg A gift given last week, would that still be ok or come under the new rules. Sounds like more retrospective taxation

Huskaris said:

CGT equalisation with income tax makes sense to me, it's one of the few taxes I think this government will be looking at that isn't the red meat sort and actually makes sound economic sense too rather than the economic equivalent of the Rwanda policy.  

It would simplify tax to some extent I guess. You are then saying (I guess) I don’t care how you made your money (income) I’m taxing you the same rate as if you are salaried. 

Huskaris said:

valleynick66 said:

Huskaris said:

CGT equalisation with income tax makes sense to me, it's one of the few taxes I think this government will be looking at that isn't the red meat sort and actually makes sound economic sense too rather than the economic equivalent of the Rwanda policy.  

It would simplify tax to some extent I guess. You are then saying (I guess) I don’t care how you made your money (income) I’m taxing you the same rate as if you are salaried. 

It’s equitable. 

Some will argue it discourages investment I guess. 

I have a £100k investment in a business. I would be happy to pay income tax levels on that when I cash it in provided that it becomes deductible on my income tax if it collapses rather than within CGT rules. 

Not sure I follow your definition of deductible in your scenario. 

valleynick66 said:

Huskaris said:

valleynick66 said:

Huskaris said:

CGT equalisation with income tax makes sense to me, it's one of the few taxes I think this government will be looking at that isn't the red meat sort and actually makes sound economic sense too rather than the economic equivalent of the Rwanda policy.  

It would simplify tax to some extent I guess. You are then saying (I guess) I don’t care how you made your money (income) I’m taxing you the same rate as if you are salaried. 

It’s equitable. 

Some will argue it discourages investment I guess. 

I have a £100k investment in a business. I would be happy to pay income tax levels on that when I cash it in provided that it becomes deductible on my income tax if it collapses rather than within CGT rules. 

Not sure I follow your definition of deductible in your scenario. 

Would it not be (from HMRC) perspective if the business ‘failed’ then when you exited there is no income / proceeds on which to be taxed?

If you are suggesting your initial investment might in that scenario might give you some credit to offset any other income tax I’m less sure they would go with that but who knows. 

I think the perception they are battling is that the ‘rich’ can be seen to pay tax at a lower rate than the average ‘Joe’ when most of their income doesn’t come from salaried pay. 

Sorry, definitely worded it poorly, my fault. 

What I'm saying is that currently if I make an investment of £100k and it fails (and by that I mean I lose £100k because it has collapsed), I effectively get £100k CGT relief, that's useless to me. What I would want if we are equalising treatment is for that £100k loss to go against my declarable income tax. Ie if I earn £150k PAYE, my taxable income is only £50k that year. 

To me that seems fair and would keep me wanting to make investments in small businesses. 

After all, if we are leveling the playing field, we need to do it properly....

golfaddick said:

Huskaris said:

valleynick66 said:

Huskaris said:

valleynick66 said:

Huskaris said:

CGT equalisation with income tax makes sense to me, it's one of the few taxes I think this government will be looking at that isn't the red meat sort and actually makes sound economic sense too rather than the economic equivalent of the Rwanda policy.  

It would simplify tax to some extent I guess. You are then saying (I guess) I don’t care how you made your money (income) I’m taxing you the same rate as if you are salaried. 

It’s equitable. 

Some will argue it discourages investment I guess. 

I have a £100k investment in a business. I would be happy to pay income tax levels on that when I cash it in provided that it becomes deductible on my income tax if it collapses rather than within CGT rules. 

Not sure I follow your definition of deductible in your scenario. 

Would it not be (from HMRC) perspective if the business ‘failed’ then when you exited there is no income / proceeds on which to be taxed?

If you are suggesting your initial investment might in that scenario might give you some credit to offset any other income tax I’m less sure they would go with that but who knows. 

I think the perception they are battling is that the ‘rich’ can be seen to pay tax at a lower rate than the average ‘Joe’ when most of their income doesn’t come from salaried pay. 

Sorry, definitely worded it poorly, my fault. 

What I'm saying is that currently if I make an investment of £100k and it fails (and by that I mean I lose £100k because it has collapsed), I effectively get £100k CGT relief, that's useless to me. What I would want if we are equalising treatment is for that £100k loss to go against my declarable income tax. Ie if I earn £150k PAYE, my taxable income is only £50k that year. 

To me that seems fair and would keep me wanting to make investments in small businesses. 

After all, if we are leveling the playing field, we need to do it properly....

Wouldn't make sense. You're mixing to differents elements of tax....capital gains & income. 

You can already offset losses against gains.....with those losses being carried over to future years if you have no gains to offset against 

In your scenario people would be investing in all sorts of loss making businesses just to reduce or nullify income tax. The country would go to pieces with little tax being taken from higher earners.

But you'd lose still lose the "net" amount... Ie of that £100k loss, you would still lose more than you gain in most cases.

Your argument around people investing in loss making businesses to reduce income tax must hold with CGT too in that case. People will be investing in loss making businesses to reduce or nullify CGT...

It all stems from a real life scenario for me, where investing in a business we had to decide if it's a 3 year loan (interest would come under income tax, if the company went under, that principal would be deductible from earnings) for 3 years at 13%, or we do an advanced subscription agreement which converts to shares at a 39% discount when a sale happens. Any gains from that are taxed at CGT levels, but if it all implodes all I get is a CGT credit, I don't have anything else in my life that's going to attract CGT. 

Enterprise investment schemes already have what I have stated above. If I invest through an EIS scheme there's 30% income tax relief on the way in, but if it implodes losses can be offset against income. Seed Enterprise investment schemes is 50% on the way in I believe, so there is precedence for this.