The Off Topic Topic

[Josquius]

So many adverts shouting about using your isa allowance before the year is up.

Does anyone actually ever do this?

No way can I afford that much. And if I could I'd probably have better ways to save.

[Grey Fox]

So many adverts shouting about using your isa allowance before the year is up.

Does anyone actually ever do this?

No way can I afford that much. And if I could I'd probably have better ways to save.

Rich people.

[Sheilbh]

So many adverts shouting about using your isa allowance before the year is up.

Does anyone actually ever do this?

No way can I afford that much. And if I could I'd probably have better ways to save.

I think it's maybe the sweet spot of domestically rich people? There are people who use up their ISA allowance and given that you don't pay any tax whatsoever on money in an ISA (up to your annual allowance) I suspect it is the best form of saving for most people including the pretty rich.

I've always been told that after your pension, any savings you make should be in an ISA for that reason - they're both the most tax effective ways of saving because the state wants to encourage people to do it (plus, obviously, the 25% bonus on a Lifetime ISA up to £4k a year).

It probably shifts at a certain level of richness when they can afford complicated tax structured investments through trusts and LPs in the British Virgin Islands etc. But I think you'd need to be exceptionally rich before that happens.

[Richard Hakluyt]

There are also stocks and shares ISAs, neither your income nor your capital gains are taxed, they are absolutely brilliant for well-off people. The allowance is £20k per annum, £40k for a couple of course; I don't think I really approve as at those levels it ends up weakening the tax base.

[Sheilbh]

There are also stocks and shares ISAs, neither your income nor your capital gains are taxed, they are absolutely brilliant for well-off people. The allowance is £20k per annum, £40k for a couple of course; I don't think I really approve as at those levels it ends up weakening the tax base.

I'm not sure.

It seems counter-intuitive to me, given the way most people's personal finances work in this country that we don't have mortgage deductions or anything like that, but have fairly "tax efficient" pension contributions and savings (up to their different allowances). But perhaps that's deliberate? It's a (broadly failed) attempt to move people from putting all their money into their property and into pension funds, stocks and shares ISAs etc (although I believe our pension system is normally rated as one of the most sustainable in the rich world). To me it makes sense given that I think we are too into property to try and tilt that to other forms of assets by making them more attractive from a tax perspective - but maybe not?

It's a bit like the government's reform on the pension allowance which will very much benefit the well-off. The Tories point to the fact that 25% of the people who'll benefit are doctors, Labour that 20% are bankers - sadly you can't help one without the other

[Admiral Yi]

There are also stocks and shares ISAs, neither your income nor your capital gains are taxed, they are absolutely brilliant for well-off people. The allowance is £20k per annum, £40k for a couple of course; I don't think I really approve as at those levels it ends up weakening the tax base.

Much higher than the US IRA limit.

[Zanza]

An example of cultural appropriation:

[The Larch]

It's only missing the wagennüsse.

[Admiral Yi]

0% vegan is impressive if they're actually pulling it off.

[Richard Hakluyt]

There are also stocks and shares ISAs, neither your income nor your capital gains are taxed, they are absolutely brilliant for well-off people. The allowance is £20k per annum, £40k for a couple of course; I don't think I really approve as at those levels it ends up weakening the tax base.

Much higher than the US IRA limit.

In addition there is an annual allowance of £60k (of pension contributions) where you can claim back tax on your private pension contributions. With the employer also making a contribution one is effectively only paying 30% of the cost of the pension's ultimate value.

The £30k per annum folk who comment in the Daily Mail are angry about all this but have been persuaded by the Tories that it is all the fault of the unemployed and immigrants 

The net result is that people like doctors, accountants and senior managers retire on high incomes which are very lightly taxed. Meanwhile, younger people are paying tax, NI, mortgage or rent and wondering how they can possibly afford to have children.

Britain is becoming a country of many rich and many well-off with a large mass of quite poor people.

[Tamas]

I liked this very succinct summary of the French situation 

https://9gag.com/gag/avQ1PGX?utm_source=copy_link&utm_medium=post_share

[Josquius]

 

[jimmy olsen]

Lol

Incredible
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/desantis-board-disney-stripped-power-98217401

DeSantis' board says Disney stripped them of power

Board members picked by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to oversee the governance of Walt Disney World say their Disney-controlled predecessors pulled a fast one on them by passing restrictive covenants that strip the new board of many of its powers

"If the agreement is deemed to violate rules against perpetuity, it will be in effect until 21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of England's King Charles III, the declaration said."

[The Larch]

Wacky proposals from the S. Korean government on how to boost birth rates, from bringin over foreign maids to gay conversion.

Foreign maids and no military service: South Korea criticised over ideas to boost birthrate
Proposals have sparked accusations of modern-day slavery and gender inequality as urgency builds in Seoul's race to lift world's lowest birthrate

South Korea's search for ways to lift its record low birthrate is becoming increasingly desperate, as the country pushes to reverse the trend that risks sending it toward economic disaster.

Among the proposals to have emerged in recent days are exempting men who have three or more children by the age of 30 from compulsory military conscription. Another is to provide significant "gift" tax breaks to parents based on the number of children they have. A further proposal put forward by a dozen lawmakers would allow foreign domestic workers to work in South Korea for less than the minimum wage, in a bid to relieve families of the burden of household chores.

The moves have angered sections of South Korean society, drawing a range of criticisms from sanctioning modern-day slavery, to favouring men over women. The push for fresh ideas comes as the country continues to grapple with the world's lowest birthrate, falling to another fresh record last year.

"The government's proposals show a lack of consideration for women's needs and perspectives," said Kim Yun-jeong, a 31-year-old designer and art instructor from Gyeonggi province.

"The gender wage gap in Korea is still significant, and women face many more challenges in balancing work and family life," she said.

Women's rights activists slammed the conscription exemption idea as only benefiting men, claiming that the problem was not the low birthrate but discrimination.

"What we need is not exemption from military service, but a society where women's careers are not interrupted even after giving birth ... and it is natural for men to share childcare and housework," they wrote in a joint statement.

'Modern-day slavery'
The foreign worker bill, which would exempt those workers from the minimum wage law, has also divided opinion.

Cho Jung-hun, a lawmaker from the minor party Transition Korea who is among the group that introduced the bill, said South Korea needed a "realistic solution for the younger generation, in which dual-income families are the norm."

The bill cites Singapore as an example, where foreign domestic workers are paid up to 10 times less than the median salary. The system has faced criticisms of abuse and exploitation.

Supporters of the system argue that providing food and board makes it a better deal than what these workers could receive in their home countries.

The conservative newspaper Chosun Ilbo has backed the bill.

"In this urgent situation, if we do not even attempt bold and diverse childcare measures, we will be even more irresponsible," the paper said in an editorial.

The minor opposition Justice party slammed the move as being akin to "modern-day slavery" and an attempt to "legalise racial discrimination." Labour unionists called it "anachronistic."

It is not the first time the country's low birthrate has been the topic of controversy.

President Yoon Suk Yeol previously suggested the cause was related to feminism, while the speaker of the National Assembly, Kim Jin-pyo, pointed to homosexuality, suggesting the dangerous practice of gay conversion therapy as a solution.

Prior to becoming minister of trade, Lee Chang-yang suggested imposing a levy on financially capable households that do not have children. There was an instance where a city government encouraged marriages between rural bachelors who were "past their prime marrying age" and young Vietnamese students to boost the population.

16 years of policies have 'failed', says president
While the latest proposals have drawn criticism, South Korea is under increasing pressure to address its languishing birthrate.

The issue is exacerbating the challenges posed by an ageing population and is predicted to have a negative impact on the country's economy, labour force, and defence capabilities.

President Yoon has demanded that the government come up with "bold and sure measures" to tackle the issue. His office is expected to announce a long-term strategy within the next few months.

The Yoon administration has already increased the monthly allowance for parents with babies up to a year old to 700,000 won ($535; £440). This amount is set to increase to 1m won next year.

In a meeting on Tuesday to address the issue, the president declared that the spending of 280tn won over the past 16 years to reverse the declining birthrate had "failed", noting that the issue was "intertwined ... with social issues" such as welfare, education, jobs, housing, and women's pursuit of economic activities.

Labour rights groups have found that nearly half of workers are unable to use their legally guaranteed parental leave due to concerns over job security, particularly among vulnerable workers.

South Korea has some of the longest work hours in the developed world and is consistently ranked as one of the worst places for women to pursue equal opportunities in the workplace.

President Yoon's recent policy to raise the maximum weekly working time to 69 hours was met with strong opposition from millennials and working parents who questioned when they would have the time to raise a child, prompting him to make a U-turn.

Still, some remain sceptical that Yoon's next policy package will be effective in arresting the crisis.

Assessing the president's vision outlined on Tuesday, the Hankyoreh newspaper noted that the words "gender equality" were conspicuously absent.

"With the government's stance against gender equality, such as pushing to abolish the gender equality ministry, the response to the low birthrate will inevitably be a futile effort," it said.

It's getting quite wild to see how desperate the politicians seem to be getting, how useless they are at identifying the real reasons of the problem and how reluctant they seem to be at offering real measures that could help out.

[Josquius]

The no military service idea is a good one. That hefty delay on men starting their careers can't be great for being in a position to have kids whilst their partner is still fertile.

But yes. Womens rights would be key.