To think Rachel Reeves patronised the public with her rhetoric on cash ISAs?!

[Hulabalu]

I paraphrase but she said she wanted to cut the ‘cash’ ISA allowance from 20k to a fraction of that but allow people to still do the 20k stocks & shares ISA. She said something like she wanted “peoples hard earned money put to work in the stock market”.
She gave ZERO thought to people’s attitude to risk, that they might not want to risk their money in stock market.
She just wanted people investing in UK companies to boost economy. Not that people would have necessarily invested in Uk stocks.
Thankfully the banks etc stepped in and stopped her stupid plan
But I now can’t stand the woman! How dare she try to “sell” her plan to us and take us for fools 😡

Reeves is an over-promoted, cv-embellishing, self-pitying cry baby, who genuinely does not have a clue.

She only remains as Chancellor to be Starmer’s flak shield.

The October budget will probably prove the end of the hatchet-faced creature, however.

I’m still just about giving her the benefit of the doubt, but I don’t think she should be trying to force people to take on more risk than is practical for them. We work in industry prone to redundancy and need savings to be able to clear the mortgage if it comes to that. We cannot risk our savings on stocks and shares. Others have less instant possible need for the savings and so bonds or stocks and shares isas are ok. If you have loads of money and want a gamble, why should you get a tax benefit and others on slightly more constrained finances not?

Sure - whatever.

UK equities have been outperformed by the US, and listing in the US is a lot more attractive than the UK, for myriad reasons.

Reeves is just trying to compel funds to invest in UK equities to bolster the sector, even though they offer lower returns for invested capital - yes, that includes yours and my pensions, ISA’s etc.

The woman is a charlatan, amongst other things.

I don't agree with your characterisation of her at all. We have to do something - people are resistant to cuts (perfectly understandably); don't want to pay more taxes and expect the country to run with top-notch services they have come to rely on and expect. If she did anything along the lines of introducing a wealth tax/raising corporation tax the same people decrying this idea would be howling that millionaires will all leave the country and what an idiot she is for causing that.

I don't know whether she is actually doing this - it keeps being mentioned but I haven't seen anything official. Also, I don't know much about the topic. I do know I put my dc's child trust fund money in stocks and shares accounts as recommended by the government at the time 18-16 years ago and they have massively outperformed those held by people we know who used the 'normal' accounts.

More information is needed but I do think people can be risk averse to their own detriment.

The stocks and shares ISA allows UK investors to put money into a range of equities including UK and global, and also into other financial instruments including bonds, which are lower risk if that’s your preference.

The stocks and shares isa is (and long has been) mislabelled.

Do you accept that she will break her promises not to raise taxes for ‘working people’, including breaking Labour’s manifesto pledges on income tax and VAT?

Doing so would make her a liar, of course.

I just don’t like being “sold to” , I’d rather she be honest about the ISA plan rather than pretend about her real reasons.

If you don’t understand then maybe just don’t comment ?!

I also accept she’s a human being doing her best under incredible pressure and is probably a bit of a scapegoat for Labours problems
my frustration really is with all politicians!

I don’t think it’s responsible messaging/spin, eg there are regulations requiring banks etc to make clear that money in these financial products is at risk.

Few people, even those with higher household wealth, want to take risks with savings.

YABU. Of course she knows that the UK public is risk averse and doesn’t want to invest. She gave plenty of thought to it. But she also thought that this is a problem and people should be given a nudge to make better decisions and take some risk.

Just because someone tries to do something with which you disagree doesn’t mean they gave it “zero thought.”

A poison chalice is what she has been given She does not have many options at all trying to balance the books of this crumbling country
She has my pity.

I voted Labour at the last election, and canvassed for the party in a local marginal seat.

Throughout my life I have saved money from my earnings on which I have already paid tax. I will not gamble with those hard earned savings on the stock market. I just won’t.

And if Reeves tries to punish my financial prudence and coerce me into doing so by cutting my cash ISA allowance I will never, ever vote Labour again.

Welcome to the club - its a rapidly growing and varied club.

Well, she’s evidently into self-pity already.

Why, because she became emotional in parliament?

@AlastheDaffodils ‘Make better decisions’ for whom? It’s probably not in individual households’ interests to take more risk with savings.

Zero care / zero shits given

and she lied about her reasoning

pretending to be benevolent

i found it insulting

YES.

What Reeves isn’t taking into account, is that whilst her healthy public sector pension is not invested in equities, those of us in DC schemes are already heavily exposed to equities via our pension schemes. I do not want or need, anymore exposure to equities as I already have about £500k via my pension pot. I don’t want my pension and my savings invested in one asset. She, and the rest of her public sector mates, would be well advised to take on some equity exposure - I’d rather stick my cash under a mattress than take on anymore risk.

Well I dont think less of her for crying ,
she’s under a lot of pressure
I’m just not happy to be told by government to invest my savings in stocks & bonds when my attitude to risk is my business, maybe I need it in cash for a reason. I’m also not happy she pretends it’s to help our savings. When there is a risk of loss especially over short term.

Fair enough.

I judge the person on their actions and their behaviour - I have seen enough of Reeves to have formed a firm opinion - a negative one.

What is worrying is that she is considered a moderate - hence the reaction in the bond markets following her sobbing episode. Who or what replaces her could be worse.

It’s not self-pity.

It’s weakness.

I don’t recall seeing Gordon Brown or George Osborne crying in Parliament. Because, whether you agreed with their policies or not, they weren’t weak.

Watch the waterworks increase when Starmer fails to confirm her tenure.

That’s self-pity, but OK, weakness if you wish.