Starmer’s chronicles

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Part of the reduction in energy bills was to be by insulation. Not everybody needs further insulation, so their bills won't be lowered because of it.

No it wasn’t.

But if you can show me that caveat in the Labour manifesto…….I’ll look at it.

Pension changes are stupid.
Everything else is meh.

Freezing tax bands is annoying but fully expected, don't think any government will change that until we get some growth from somewhere.

---------- Post added at 23:24 ---------- Previous post was at 23:22 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

Chipping at or taking away all the incentives to save, or build up your pension, what complete muppets.

* ISA Limit reducing to 12,000
* Tax on interest rising higher than other income.
* Pension contributions above £2,000 a year made via salary sacrifice will be subject to National Insurance.

ISA will be higher if the remaining investment is Stocks and Shares, I think. Part of the reason is that the government want people to invest both to boost business but also so they get higher returns. It's hard to beat inflation with bank rates so people's money is slowly devaluing. A lot of dead money is sitting around. That's why these changes don't apply to people over 65 who might want to start drawing down their cash rather than letting it grow (and have smaller time horizons in case things go south).

Originally Posted by Damien

ISA will be higher if the remaining investment is Stocks and Shares

People are not interested in "investing" in stocks or shares, most dont really understand them, but they do understand the warning "you may get back less than the amount you invested". So of course, they prefer the safer option of interest (Me included, IMO stocks/shares are a gamble).

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Paul

People are not interested in "investing" in stocks or shares, most dont really understand them, but they do understand the warning "you may get back less than the amount you invested". So of course, they prefer the safer option of interest (Me included, IMO stocks/shares are a gamble).

A bit of both? Stocks and shares are give bigger returns in the the long term. Over time they do much better than cash savings. With cash savings if inflation is higher than the saving rate, then they are a guaranteed loss.

analysis from AJ Bell shows that £1,000 deposited into the average cash ISA when ISAs were launched in 1999 would today be worth £2,079. The same investment into UK stocks via a typical UK All Companies fund would be worth almost twice as much, at £3,787.

https://moneyweek.com/personal-finan...cks-and-shares

Originally Posted by Paul

People are not interested in "investing" in stocks or shares, most dont really understand them, but they do understand the warning "you may get back less than the amount you invested". So of course, they prefer the safer option of interest (Me included, IMO stocks/shares are a gamble).

Sure, and it's risky for short-term savings, but for long-term savings, it does become an issue as people are getting smaller returns. I.E, A lot of pension saving has to be in shares, otherwise the growth will be really poor.