Rachel Reeves can’t win, can she?

I don’t think a lower limit on cash ISAs will prevent people from saving. In my experience people with enough money to save do so because they value financial security. As I said, the greatest incentive to encourage saving is high interest rates, which are detrimental to the economy overall. Neither do I think that limiting salary sacrifice pension contributions free of NI to £2k a year will stop people paying into a pension fund. The contributions will still be tax free.

You’ve never agreed with me so how would you know?

Blossom always takes the contrary view I've noticed. No matter what. Even if your post agrees with her.

It feels like you will just argue that black is white. Do you genuinely think that this is a good idea? And the proposals around SS pensions in a country grossly under pensioned?

I doubt very much that the prospect of paying tax on any interest over £1k is preventing 48% of the population from saving. Having no money left over to save is probably the reason.

I doubt very much that the prospect of paying tax on any interest over £1k is preventing 48% of the population from saving. Having no money left over to save is probably the reason.

Agree. Why are people arguing for higher taxes anyway? It’s hampering growth and changing behaviour.

Seems like a weak argument to me. ISA’s are now the most widely held savings product. At a time when reports suggest that 48% of the population have little or no savings, its doesn’t seem a sensible move 🤷‍♀️

People saved money before ISAs were invented. Plenty of people currently save outside them. What might encourage savings is high interest rates but they’re catastrophic for everyone else.

I’m not objecting to all forms of double taxation. I’m saying that in a functioning tax system, you differentiate between types of activity because they have different economic effects and allow you to shape behaviours.
There are many reasons why you would encourage savings, some of which I outlined.
So it’s not about “double taxation being wrong”. It’s about avoiding bad taxation that discourages beneficial behaviours. Another example of this would be the changes being proposed to the salary sacrifice pension schemes.

You objected to double taxation. I merely pointed out that it’s inherent in our economy. Interest on investment is passive income, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be taxed.

I just don’t agree. Saying “everything is taxed multiple times” isn’t really an argument, it's just describing how redistribution works.
Most governments deliberately tax spending more heavily (particularly on certain things) to discourage over-consumption and raise revenue from economic activity.
Surely, we want to encourage savings so there is less dependency on the state and benefits, more investment capital, and households with financial safety net (so less reliance on the state).
It makes no sense to lump savings returns in with petrol or VAT. They’re taxed differently for a reason.

I just don’t agree. Saying “everything is taxed multiple times” isn’t really an argument, it's just describing how redistribution works.
Most governments deliberately tax spending more heavily (particularly on certain things) to discourage over-consumption and raise revenue from economic activity.
Surely, we want to encourage savings so there is less dependency on the state and benefits, more investment capital, and households with financial safety net (so less reliance on the state).
It makes no sense to lump savings returns in with petrol or VAT. They’re taxed differently for a reason.

Virtually every time we spend money it’s taxed twice. Fill your car with petrol and the money’s taxed three times. It’s an illogical argument.

Uh?

The interest etc has never been taxed, its unearned income they aren't taxing the capital.

Plus they give a £1k allowance, on 20k equivalent to 5% rate.

Dividends? again, unearned, Germany have a flat rate tax of 26.5%, the UK is extremely generous.

Germany's economy is built on SME's

I have to take issue with that argument.. Money put into an ISA has already been taxed once via income tax.
Taxing the returns again (interest, dividends, gains) is effectively double taxation on already taxed income.
ISAs simply stop that.
They don’t provide a £7bn tax break. They aviod extracting £7bn a second time from savers.

No MN reinstated, sorry! they said it was in "error" so you hitting the report button with your "concerns" didn't work did it?

All you every do is come back with snide little side comments, just inside the rules

No, not taxing something which has already been subject to tax, is not a tax break.
Not taxing something which has never been taxed, isn't a tax break.

You were the one with a deleted comment for a personal attack against me! At least I don't name change to hide behind that.

I have to take issue with that argument.. Money put into an ISA has already been taxed once via income tax.
Taxing the returns again (interest, dividends, gains) is effectively double taxation on already taxed income.
ISAs simply stop that.
They don’t provide a £7bn tax break. They aviod extracting £7bn a second time from savers.

It really isn’t a tax break when the invested income has already been subject to tax. Next, you’ll say being allowed to breath in your own home is a tax break; oh wait…

I think the problem hear is every time you counter, you have to chuck in an insult.

As if you know all the answers.

As i said, the finance industry is doing exceptionally well, this tax break and it is one, despite your moans to the contrary, costs the country £7bn in foregone tax.

I think the problem hear is every time you counter, you have to chuck in an insult.

As if you know all the answers.

As i said, the finance industry is doing exceptionally well, this tax break and it is one, despite your moans to the contrary, costs the country £7bn in foregone tax.

Taxing something isn't a cut.
Not taxing something isn't a tax break

It doesn't matter how they managed before, it's what happens now. So you support reducing access to mortgages, increased costs for borrowers?

This is the problem with fiscal + economical ignorance.