Dizzy Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 front page news today http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/4499/1/Plan-to-help-40000-savers/Page1.html Firstly I'd like to say that I am not knocking Mr Mowatt or the Conservaitves proposed plan at all as any help is good news BUT.....I'd like to know if there are any plans to help ALL savers ! Not all savers are actually tax payers, but are still 'innocent victims' of the credit crunch because of the interest rate cuts, so does that mean that these people should just have to put up with getting next to NO INTEREST on their savings. Not much of an incentive to keep your savings in the bank if you ask me Also, I have a couple of questions (over to you Paul K as you are a whiz with figures ) Under Conservative proposals, basic rate taxpayers would pay no tax at all on their income from savings, making them up to ?7,200 a year better off. any idea where the ?7,200 comes from? What amount of savings would a basic rate tax payer have to have to be ?7,200 a year better off ? The income tax allowance for pensioners would be increased, with age-related personal allowances rising by ?2,000, helping them by up to ?400 a year. That seems quite low compared with the amount given for basic rate tax payers. For pensioners it only equates to ?7 a week which surely is not a lot. ..... We need to cut taxes for them and help turn Britain from a spend, spend, spend society into a save, save, save society."We need change to deliver a culture of thrift at the heart of government and a culture of saving at the heart of our economy." I completely agree but from where I'm sitting with my savings doing diddly squat now due to the interest rate cut (and the fact that the proposals won't actually help me) I'm starting to wonder why I didn't just spend spend spend when everyone else did (although wisely of course ) Added to that what about the huge fall in endowment mortgage returns...... many people are still destined to loose out left right and centre through no fault of their own Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 If Prudence had raised tax allowances in line with inflation since 1997, the basic rate tax allowance would be in the region of ?14000 meaning there would be no need for his tax credit scam ( the lower paid paying NO TAX WHATSOEVER in many cases ). Even as we are now if all taxes and allowances, apart from income tax at 50%, were abolished we would be better off and even Obs would be happy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 Eh.... can you explain that again in 'blond' terms please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 17, 2009 Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 All I'm saying is if tax was simplified so that everyone paid 50% of their earnings to the government "pot" and all other taxes (including council tax, vat etc) were abolished it would be fairer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2009 OK so say I earned ?300 gross a week in wages and had ?10k savings (somewhow) I would get to keep all of my ?300..... and also wouldn't have to pay any tax on it, or any council tax or any tax on interest on my savings (which wouldn't much) And YOU earned ?300 gross a week too and had ?10k savings which you wouldn't have to pay tax on either , or have to pay your council tax or tax on your savings..... BUT YOU ALSO ran your own company which was liable for VAT and Corporation Tax etc which you wouldn't have to pay either.... .... wouldn't you be better off tax wise than me ?? Not forgetting Gary who earns ?3.4 million a year, has ?4 million in savings and lives in a 10 bedroom house with 8 acres of land. Bet he'll be smiling Anyway what about my naff savings should I just give up and spend them or what Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 It's actually worse than that Diz: not only savers, but investments have taken a dive - so the very folk who have been acting responsibly are dipping out - while this Gov bend over backwards to rescue the feckless, by allowing them to borrow even more - the economics of the assylum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 NO! Read it again Dismayed. You would pay 50% of your gross earnings but no other taxes. So if you earn ?300 a week you would pay ?150 a week tax but nothing else. However the problem is the politicians would bugger even something as simple as that up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Some folk don't earn enough to afford 50% - hence the need to increase the tax threshold so the poor pay nothing but increase super-tax so the super-rich pay through the nose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Dismayed's question regarding the ?7,200 saving. For the current tax year the basic rate (20%) band is for incomes up to ?36,000, therefore the figure of ?7,200 is based on somebody who has interest income of ?36,000 a year (36,000 x 20% = 7,200). At current interest rates, you would need about ?860,000 of capital, based on a 1 year NS & I Guaranteed Growth Bond. With regards to the ?2,000 increase in the personal allowance for those over 64, that would be in addition to the basic allowance of ?5,435 and the current age allowance of ?9,030 (65 -74) or ?9,180 (75 +). It should be noted that age related allowances are progressively withdrawn if income exceeds ?21,800. Over the next couple of decades I can foresee the basic rate of income tax rising to 60%, in order to pay off state debt and to pay for public sector pensions.....that will have a combined total in excess of ?2 trillion. ( the UK's current annual GNP is in the region of ?1.4 trillion) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Well that's really intresting Paul but what do the rest of us do who don't have an income from savings of ?36,000. Is there anyone in Warrington who earns that amount from their savings? I don't know what sort job you used to have but you must have been on a wacking amount of dosh to save that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Well that's really intresting Paul but what do the rest of us do who don't have an income from savings of ?36,000. Is there anyone in Warrington who earns that amount from their savings? I don't know what sort job you used to have but you must have been on a wacking amount of dosh to save that much. Geoffrey, I've added to my post in order to more fully respond to Dismayed's question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Some folk don't earn enough to afford 50% - hence the need to increase the tax threshold so the poor pay nothing but increase super-tax so the super-rich pay through the nose. Whilst there is some credence to what you say, I think you will find that the so called super rich will leave the UK. I certainly think that there needs to be a simplification of the tax and benefits system which removes those on the most modest incomes from the tax and benefits system, at the same time removing tax concessions and allowances for those on the highest incomes. Alas it will increase unemployment....as tax experts will no longer be needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 It wouldn't affect the super super rich as they don't pay tax anyway, do they? I thought they exploited all the loopholes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 True, but the "loopholes" should still be closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 The irony of the current situation is that some of the super rich who have done all that they can to avoid paying taxes are now relying on taxpayers to bail their business ventures out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Perhaps you could name the super-rich that we would miss Paul? Meanwhile, this Gov are still allowing short selling speculators to distort the market and have never attempted to close the loopholes that allows the super-rich to pay less than 10% tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 I can't Observer. Super rich paying 10% tax....chance would be a fine thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 NO! Read it again Dismayed. You would pay 50% of your gross earnings but no other taxes. So if you earn ?300 a week you would pay ?150 a week tax but nothing else. However the problem is the politicians would bugger even something as simple as that up. I read it 5 times for goodness sake.... not my fault I'm apparently thick. OK so I would earn ?300 a week but only get to keep ?150 and pay nothing else at all tax-wise on anything else.. I understand that bit BUT... you would earn the same and get to keep the same amount BUT your business wouldn't have to pay VAT or Corporation Tax etc... No matter how hard I try to understand you I still think that in the long run you'd be better off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Well that's really intresting Paul but what do the rest of us do who don't have an income from savings of ?36,000. Is there anyone in Warrington who earns that amount from their savings? Thanks for the explanation Paul but like Geoff(rey) says it would appear that most of us who have managed to be 'sensible family savers' will be excluded from gaining any benefit whatsoever from the Conservatives proposals either Sorry.. maybe I am just living upto my screen name but Gordy keeps promising help for small businesses.... as long as they are not really small. He keeps promising help for mortgage holders... as long as they have huge mortgages or are willing to take out one. The Conservatives are now promising help for savers.. as long as they have a HUGE amount of savings etc I could go on but I can't be bothered as I am sounding political and I hate doing that and maybe I need to read all the other replies/answers/comments first..... I think it's every man,woman and child for themselves now.. sod the so called clever buggers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Some folk don't earn enough to afford 50% - hence the need to increase the tax threshold so the poor pay nothing but increase super-tax so the super-rich pay through the nose. Whilst there is some credence to what you say, I think you will find that the so called super rich will leave the UK. Ah ha so the super rich are also far more important than the normal person in the big 'credit crunch' equation. Like any of them have their savings here anyway Let them go is what I say... why are they living here anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 Cos they're only taxed at 40%, which with a spiv accountant they can lower to 10% or just bank it off-shore (but not in Iceland!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.