Opinions?
(Hope this is the correct board?)
Moved from HYP-P. -- MDW1954
Thanks to Rhyd6,eyeball08,Wondergirly,bofh,johnstevens77, for Donating to support the site
scrumpyjack wrote:So the long term strategy is to pay it off by devaluing the liability via inflation. It's what HMG have always done before.
tea42 wrote:With the eye watering government borrowing in mind an obvious target for increased taxation to pay the debt down must be dividends? A no concession strategy would mean dividends taxed at your normal rate. Perhaps slashing the £20,000 pa ISA limit too, and a limit as to how much you can hold tax free? ie many of the attractions of the HYP eroded.
Opinions?
(Hope this is the correct board?)Moderator Message:
Moved from HYP-P. -- MDW1954
Dod101 wrote:NeilW has clearly found the money tree. Makes me wonder why anybody bothers to work.
Dod101 wrote:On the OP's point, there is always a risk of increasing taxation on dividends but most of us over time will have been taking advantage of the protection offered by SIPPs and ISAs and we should all be continuing to do that. They seem to me to be quite generous nowadays and we should all use that generosity whilst it is on offer.
scrumpyjack wrote:The advantage of large ISAs, for HMG, is that people tend to hang on to them til death do us part, then HMG gets 40%!
scrumpyjack wrote:As most dividends are paid to pension funds, personal pensions and a smaller amount to ISAs, raising the tax on personal dividends really wouldn't raise very much. He needs to raise indirect taxes like VAT or petrol duties etc to raise a lot, but can't do that politically nor risk any substantial tax rises which wold choke the recovery. It's a once in a hundred years event so recover it over a century, or don't bother. He could sell gilts to the BofE who would then pass the interest back to him - ie print it - which is what he's doing.
So the long term strategy is to pay it off by devaluing the liability via inflation. It's what HMG have always done before.
flyer61 wrote:My tuppence worth is that it will be the state pension that gets the treatment. Delay retirement for all by a year and break the triple lock...that should do it!
scrumpyjack wrote:The great majority of UK gilts are conventional not indexed. HMG has been reluctant to issue too much, presumably because they can't be devalued.
There is great demand for ILGs from pension funds etc but it is not satisfied by the available issues so the price has been bid up to guarantee a real loss.
Wizard wrote:flyer61 wrote:My tuppence worth is that it will be the state pension that gets the treatment. Delay retirement for all by a year and break the triple lock...that should do it!
Seems fair, given it is the older generation that have been by far the biggest beneficiaries of Covid mitigation measures.
Arborbridge wrote:Wizard wrote:flyer61 wrote:My tuppence worth is that it will be the state pension that gets the treatment. Delay retirement for all by a year and break the triple lock...that should do it!
Seems fair, given it is the older generation that have been by far the biggest beneficiaries of Covid mitigation measures.
Well, apart from the ones who died
Arborbridge wrote:Wizard wrote:flyer61 wrote:My tuppence worth is that it will be the state pension that gets the treatment. Delay retirement for all by a year and break the triple lock...that should do it!
Seems fair, given it is the older generation that have been by far the biggest beneficiaries of Covid mitigation measures.
Well, apart from the ones who died The National Cull of sick and elderly, making way for young and vigorous growth??
Wizard wrote:Arborbridge wrote:Wizard wrote:Seems fair, given it is the older generation that have been by far the biggest beneficiaries of Covid mitigation measures.
Well, apart from the ones who died
But the point is that if deaths had been much higher by not wrecking the economy it would have been disproportionately old people who would have died in higher numbers. So many more old lives have been saved, so why should the young be expected to pay the price disproportionately.
Arborbridge wrote:Wizard wrote:Arborbridge wrote:
Well, apart from the ones who died
But the point is that if deaths had been much higher by not wrecking the economy it would have been disproportionately old people who would have died in higher numbers. So many more old lives have been saved, so why should the young be expected to pay the price disproportionately.
Yes, that would have been an even better cull.
Return to “High Yield Shares & Strategies - General”
Users browsing this forum: SPURLEY and 25 guests