Greed of the Super Rich, Lizzie in Trouble.

[Cyclone]

You could, and whilst that is obviously a direct and measurable effect, it had no actual impact on their life or lifestyle in any way.

 

It absolutely did affect the poor more acutely, and as leaving the EU causes us more financial hardship the effects will again be felt more by the poor. Unfortunately the poor are the ones who voted to leave, a 'protest vote', not understanding that the EU was a massive benefit to them.

 

---------- Post added 14-11-2017 at 11:44 ----------

 

Same, nothing changed for anyone I know either. IT contractor here too. Had to work as far away as Manchester!

 

I had to take a contract in Essex, but only for 3 months, then London for 9, then Nottingham. Kept working it closer to home.

 

---------- Post added 14-11-2017 at 11:46 ----------

 

But their isn't that many poor people about. Most people are comfortable. They have warm houses, they have enough to eat ( or too much to eat, looking at most people).

 

The use of foodbanks has increased massively. And not because people see it as a cheap source of food or anything silly like that. It's because there are many more people in dire need of food and with no income or money to buy any.

Rent arrears have increased hugely as well, again, this is because people are simply being left with no income, no benefits and no choice.

[spilldig]

No I’m completely correct.

 

Once again ISAs can not be classed the same as aggressive tax avoidance.

 

Your argument is a simplistic dog whistle that pivots around both being legal. I get that but it’s irrelevant. Utterly so.

 

Using ISAs is economically virtuous behaviour. Aggressive tax avoidance is not.

 

We’ve had this same argument over the years, and I’ve had it with umpteen other IT contractors who use offshore tax avoidance schemes. I don’t have a problem with that necessarily. I have a problem with aggressive avoidance.

 

We are not talking about the same thing, not in a million years. Using the ISA argument is lumping ordinary people together with criminals, money launderers and aggressive avoiders. It’s not helpful. In fact it’s insulting.

Agreed. Most people who we know are losing money on ISAs. Why should you be taxed for losing money ? At the very least the government should re-open inflation indexed national savings, as they had before George Osborne axed them.

[Cyclone]

Do you mean losing money in real terms when compared to inflation?

Because the tax is avoided against the interest paid as income, in a normal account, no matter what lowly rate it paid, it would be taxed.

You could of course just keep the cash, get no interest, and pay no tax that way.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Cyclone

[spilldig]

Do you mean losing money in real terms when compared to inflation?

Because the tax is avoided against the interest paid as income, in a normal account, no matter what lowly rate it paid, it would be taxed.

You could of course just keep the cash, get no interest, and pay no tax that way.

 

Yes. If the savings kept a little bit above inflation you wouldn't lose by paying tax, but if someone has money in a savings account paying say 0.5% then they would be paying tax on a 2.5% loss, at the moment.

[truman]

Agreed. Most people who we know are losing money on ISAs. .

 

You need to get a stocks and shares ISA instead of a cash one....

[Cyclone]

Yes. If the savings kept a little bit above inflation you wouldn't lose by paying tax, but if someone has money in a savings account paying say 0.5% then they would be paying tax on a 2.5% loss, at the moment.

 

If they didn't get a return at all (cash), then there'd be no tax to pay, but it would be a 3% loss.

[spilldig]

You need to get a stocks and shares ISA instead of a cash one....

 

Where did I say anything about me. I said, most people we know ?

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2017 at 15:28 ----------

 

If they didn't get a return at all (cash), then there'd be no tax to pay, but it would be a 3% loss.

 

Yes indeed, but as I said in another post, I think the government should re-introduce measures so that peoples savings are protected against loss due to inflation,without strings as they were before George Osborne did away with the index linked national savings scheme.

[Cyclone]

NS&I didn't really protect the majority of peoples savings from inflation though did it.

[spilldig]

You need to get a stocks and shares ISA instead of a cash one....

 

I would advise people to do that though.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2017 at 15:55 ----------

 

NS&I didn't really protect the majority of peoples savings from inflation though did it.

 

I don't know, but the option was there.

[Staunton]

Yes indeed, but as I said in another post, I think the government should re-introduce measures so that peoples savings are protected against loss due to inflation,without strings as they were before George Osborne did away with the index linked national savings scheme.

 

This was a neoliberal savings grab, a planned erosion of savings by Osborne. It was no accident, and the May minority government will not be persuaded to make any significant changes. Why would they? The plan is working just fine! Savers either spend their money on baubles and gewgaws or lose in relation to inflation. Either way finance capital wins.