The Conservatives said they were going to put this in their manifesto.
Does anyone think they will
do it, if they get in? personally i doubt it.The need for tax revenue
will be overwhelming.

"mick" wrote in message
...
The Conservatives said they were going to put this in their manifesto.
Does anyone think they will
do it, if they get in? personally i doubt it.The need for tax revenue
will be overwhelming.

they might put it in to get votes but they would never honour it...

"mick" wrote in message
...
The Conservatives said they were going to put this in their manifesto.
Does anyone think they will
do it, if they get in? personally i doubt it.The need for tax revenue
will be overwhelming.

They probably will but I doubt it'll be a priority. Although with interest
rates so low it probably doesn't bring a lot in now. My guess is they'll
increase VAT substantially and cut a few other taxes like savings.

--
Andy

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:25:30 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
wrote:


"mick" wrote in message
...
The Conservatives said they were going to put this in their manifesto.
Does anyone think they will
do it, if they get in? personally i doubt it.The need for tax revenue
will be overwhelming.

They probably will but I doubt it'll be a priority. Although with interest
rates so low it probably doesn't bring a lot in now. My guess is they'll
increase VAT substantially and cut a few other taxes like savings.

In view of the huge mountain of debt that many people have got
themselves into, with very little in savings, I think this is a good
idea. It would be better to cut taxes on savings to encourage people
to save more, and introduce taxes on some types of borrowing to make
it more difficult to take out unnecessary loans.

Chris

Chris Blunt wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:25:30 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
wrote:


"mick" wrote in message
...
The Conservatives said they were going to put this in their
manifesto. Does anyone think they will
do it, if they get in? personally i doubt it.The need for tax
revenue will be overwhelming.

They probably will but I doubt it'll be a priority. Although with
interest rates so low it probably doesn't bring a lot in now. My
guess is they'll increase VAT substantially and cut a few other
taxes like savings.

In view of the huge mountain of debt that many people have got
themselves into, with very little in savings, I think this is a good
idea. It would be better to cut taxes on savings to encourage people
to save more

I wonder about that. If you take cash ISAs as an example of tax free
savings, all that's happened is that the banks and building societies offer
those at rates lower than any corresponding non-ISA account. What they're
doing is snaffling for themselves the tax advantage that should be coming to
you and me. It's hard in fact to find a cash ISA that pays any more than
you can get elsewhere tax paid.

Who's to say the greedy banks won't do exactly the same, and regard it as a
windfall, if all savings accounts were made tax free? Will they really pass
on all the benefit to us?

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
Chris Blunt wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:25:30 -0000, "Andy Pandy"
wrote:


"mick" wrote in message
...
The Conservatives said they were going to put this in their
manifesto. Does anyone think they will
do it, if they get in? personally i doubt it.The need for tax
revenue will be overwhelming.

They probably will but I doubt it'll be a priority. Although with
interest rates so low it probably doesn't bring a lot in now. My
guess is they'll increase VAT substantially and cut a few other
taxes like savings.

In view of the huge mountain of debt that many people have got
themselves into, with very little in savings, I think this is a good
idea. It would be better to cut taxes on savings to encourage people
to save more

I wonder about that. If you take cash ISAs as an example of tax free
savings, all that's happened is that the banks and building societies
offer those at rates lower than any corresponding non-ISA account.

Do they? I've got a regular saver ISA paying 7% with FD, they weren't
offering a regular saver non-ISA paying 11.74% or even 8.75%.

What they're doing is snaffling for themselves the tax advantage that
should be coming to you and me. It's hard in fact to find a cash ISA that
pays any more than you can get elsewhere tax paid.

I've not found that.

Who's to say the greedy banks won't do exactly the same, and regard it as
a windfall, if all savings accounts were made tax free? Will they really
pass on all the benefit to us?

Won't be as bad as the VAT reduction. How many retailers actually lowered
prices by the amount of the VAT reduction?

--
Andy

Andy Pandy wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in
message ...

I wonder about that. If you take cash ISAs as an example of tax free
savings, all that's happened is that the banks and building societies
offer those at rates lower than any corresponding non-ISA account.

Do they? I've got a regular saver ISA paying 7% with FD, they weren't
offering a regular saver non-ISA paying 11.74% or even 8.75%.

If you take Halifax just as an example, their current cash ISA fixed rates
for 2, 3 and 4 years are 3.5, 3.75 and 4.25%. The corresponding rates for
2, 3 and 4 year fixed rate term bonds not in an ISA are 4.0, 4.25 and 4.5%.
OK, you'll get back slightly more from the ISAs than you would from the term
bonds after basic rate tax, but why are the gross rates consistently lower
on the ISAs? It can only be that the bank is taking or 'sharing' what the
government intended should really be yours. That's unfair, disreputable and
underhand in my view.

And I don't think it's limited just to Halifax.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
Andy Pandy wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in
message ...

I wonder about that. If you take cash ISAs as an example of tax free
savings, all that's happened is that the banks and building societies
offer those at rates lower than any corresponding non-ISA account.

Do they? I've got a regular saver ISA paying 7% with FD, they weren't
offering a regular saver non-ISA paying 11.74% or even 8.75%.

If you take Halifax just as an example, their current cash ISA fixed rates
for 2, 3 and 4 years are 3.5, 3.75 and 4.25%. The corresponding rates for
2, 3 and 4 year fixed rate term bonds not in an ISA are 4.0, 4.25 and
4.5%. OK, you'll get back slightly more from the ISAs than you would from
the term bonds after basic rate tax, but why are the gross rates
consistently lower on the ISAs? It can only be that the bank is taking or
'sharing' what the government intended should really be yours. That's
unfair, disreputable and underhand in my view.

"Only"? There might be extra admin involved for ISAs. Or more likely there
is a behavioural difference in investors - eg for bonds they might account
for the likelyhood of early closure, or average investment, which may be
different for ISAs.

For instant access accounts, ISAs pay pretty much the same if not more
interest than the equivalent non ISA account, eg First Direct are offering
an ISA at 2.5% for a year, instant access. Their best offering for non-ISA
instant access is 0.25% gross. They've always offered better rates from
ISAs - the difference is nothing to do with tax but an expected behavioural
difference, people don't tend to use ISAs as instant access even if they
can - they tend to invest and leave. And the interest rate drops after a
year (when sensible people transfer out).

--
Andy

Andy Pandy wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in
message ...
Andy Pandy wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in
message ...

I wonder about that. If you take cash ISAs as an example of tax
free savings, all that's happened is that the banks and building
societies offer those at rates lower than any corresponding
non-ISA account.

Do they? I've got a regular saver ISA paying 7% with FD, they
weren't offering a regular saver non-ISA paying 11.74% or even
8.75%.

If you take Halifax just as an example, their current cash ISA fixed
rates for 2, 3 and 4 years are 3.5, 3.75 and 4.25%. The
corresponding rates for 2, 3 and 4 year fixed rate term bonds not in
an ISA are 4.0, 4.25 and 4.5%. OK, you'll get back slightly more from the
ISAs than you would
from the term bonds after basic rate tax, but why are the gross rates
consistently lower on the ISAs? It can only be that the bank is
taking or 'sharing' what the government intended should really be
yours. That's unfair, disreputable and underhand in my view.

"Only"? There might be extra admin involved for ISAs. Or more likely
there is a behavioural difference in investors - eg for bonds they
might account for the likelyhood of early closure, or average
investment, which may be different for ISAs.

I doubt that there is any extra administration involved with ISAs, or that
there is any real reason to give different rates of interest on what would
otherwise be totally equivalent accounts.


For instant access accounts, ISAs pay pretty much the same if not more
interest than the equivalent non ISA account, eg First Direct are
offering an ISA at 2.5% for a year, instant access. Their best
offering for non-ISA instant access is 0.25% gross. They've always
offered better rates from ISAs - the difference is nothing to do with
tax but an expected behavioural difference, people don't tend to use
ISAs as instant access even if they can - they tend to invest and
leave. And the interest rate drops after a year (when sensible people
transfer out).

Indeed. It's a sprat to catch a mackerel. I don't think you can properly
compare rates that include a hefty, temporary bonus, which is why I thought
it more realistic to select the longer term accounts I did.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
Andy Pandy wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in
message ...
Andy Pandy wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in
message ...

I wonder about that. If you take cash ISAs as an example of tax
free savings, all that's happened is that the banks and building
societies offer those at rates lower than any corresponding
non-ISA account.

Do they? I've got a regular saver ISA paying 7% with FD, they
weren't offering a regular saver non-ISA paying 11.74% or even
8.75%.

If you take Halifax just as an example, their current cash ISA fixed
rates for 2, 3 and 4 years are 3.5, 3.75 and 4.25%. The
corresponding rates for 2, 3 and 4 year fixed rate term bonds not in
an ISA are 4.0, 4.25 and 4.5%. OK, you'll get back slightly more from
the ISAs than you would
from the term bonds after basic rate tax, but why are the gross rates
consistently lower on the ISAs? It can only be that the bank is
taking or 'sharing' what the government intended should really be
yours. That's unfair, disreputable and underhand in my view.

"Only"? There might be extra admin involved for ISAs. Or more likely
there is a behavioural difference in investors - eg for bonds they
might account for the likelyhood of early closure, or average
investment, which may be different for ISAs.

I doubt that there is any extra administration involved with ISAs, or that
there is any real reason to give different rates of interest on what would
otherwise be totally equivalent accounts.


For instant access accounts, ISAs pay pretty much the same if not more
interest than the equivalent non ISA account, eg First Direct are
offering an ISA at 2.5% for a year, instant access. Their best
offering for non-ISA instant access is 0.25% gross. They've always
offered better rates from ISAs - the difference is nothing to do with
tax but an expected behavioural difference, people don't tend to use
ISAs as instant access even if they can - they tend to invest and
leave. And the interest rate drops after a year (when sensible people
transfer out).

Indeed. It's a sprat to catch a mackerel. I don't think you can properly
compare rates that include a hefty, temporary bonus, which is why I
thought it more realistic to select the longer term accounts I did.

Nationwide were paying around 0.2% on my old ISAS so had to move them to get
a decent rate - amazingly the best rate I could get for a NEW ISA (from
someone I'd heard of or trusted) just before Christmas was the Nationwide