Tax ISAs (and what is 'significant wealth'?)

You are quite ignorant, aren't you?

There are quite a number of ISA millionaires, though I expect some of the older ones will have died.

Not as rich as the average Conservative Cabinet Minister, of course, but certainly far more wealthy than the vast majority of the UK population.

Somehow you have forgotten about PEPs (from 1987) and TESSAs (from 1991), which owners were able to migrate into the ISAs that replaced them in 1999.

Worryingly, I see there are still some people with cash ISAs. These too could be migrated into Shares ISAs.

Half the wealth in Britain is owned by the richest 10% of the population. I hear some of them begrudge paying taxes, but luckily for them, our tax system is tilted in their favour. Perhaps it shouldn't be.

Oh, I forgot, the habit of changing the question and getting abusive when dumbness is pointed out.
Peps were what, £6k? Peanuts. A savings incentive.
Marginal use to anyone wealthy.

It's hardly surprising that given the years, some folks' savings have turned into a million - I demonstrated making 20+ % in a month or so. You seem to be bitter about that, implying there's something wrong with it, or those people can't be "working people"
Why, did you never have enough to use an ISA or similar? You never used a tax avoidance option? Answer the question.
 
Sponsored Links
I see you are pretending you didn't read my post, where I showed that taxes bear much heavily on people who earn their living as workers, than those receiving dividends or capital gains.

A very flimsy and unconvincing attempt.
Yes I read that crap.
You didn't show it, you lied.
Workers pay different rates including zero. Your statement is junk.
I keep repeating that the people investing the money have already done the work to earn the money in the first place and paid tax on it. Like I did.

You deliberately don't compare apples with apples. It just makes your posts futile, and you, look bitter.

WHat logic are you claiming exists that people should pay a higher rate the second time they're taxed?

Not moving any goalposts, just pointing out that you're in a febrile whining spiral not looking at which end you're playing.

Remind us how things were radically different when your labour party chums were in power?

Not wanting to answer that question, I asked, I see. Embarrassing, is it?
 
Yes I read that crap.
You didn't show it, you lied.
Workers pay different rates including zero. Your statement is junk.
I keep repeating that the people investing the money have already done the work to earn the money in the first place and paid tax on it. Like I did.

You deliberately don't compare apples with apples. It just makes your posts futile, and you, look bitter.

WHat logic are you claiming exists that people should pay a higher rate the second time they're taxed?

Not moving any goalposts, just pointing out that you're in a febrile whining spiral not looking at which end you're playing.

Remind us how things were radically different when your labour party chums were in power?

Not wanting to answer that question, I asked, I see. Embarrassing, is it?
Hey, wash your mouth out! You do know it’s the forum resident super-investor you’re running down, don’t you? :rolleyes:

8ED7009C-EDE9-4319-8FE4-894367A79D8A.jpeg
 
Sponsored Links
HIs job, so he should be sitting on a tax-free pile by now.

The FTSE 100 has done better, recently anyway. Energy compainies. The Vote saw a devaluation £ versus the $. Most funds are in $.
With divis it has returned several %.
 
Back
Top