Kill the bourgeoisie!

Eliminate them as a class!

The solution to this problem is relatively straightforward. A lifetime contribution limit should be introduced. The sum could be discussed, but when £100,000 represents significant savings within the UK at present a cap at this limit would seem appropriate and could be applied from now on, preventing anyone with this sum in ISA accounts from making further contributions in the future.

Can’t allow anyone to become financially independent now, can we? If we did then how could government retain power over them?

15 thoughts on “Kill the bourgeoisie!”

  1. Socialism never runs out of “the rich” to vilify for the mob, you just ‘progressively’ reduce the definition of who is ‘rich’

  2. The Meissen Bison

    But Sir, Sir, ISAs are reprehensible tax avoidance vehicles, Sir, and shouldn’t be allowed.

    It’s amusing that he should choose the figure of £100,000 as this indicates that he has rather less than that himself. In Tuberworld everything relates to Capt Potato as keen students of Dachau Syndrome will be aware.

  3. He really can’t join the doors can he.

    He is very keen on lifetime limits, for example for pension pots. Until they affect those he likes, like NHS doctors. Then he thinks they’re outrageous and inefficient and self-defeating and…

  4. At current interest rates £100k would get you £250 per year in income. An annuity of about 4-5k. Invested in certain shares maybe 5-6k. Its an income of at best less than a third of the current minimum wage. Yet thats what he considers ‘appropriate’ for a pensioner to live on. The man’s sick.

  5. Politicians and lefties in general are always circling around pension funds and retirement accounts arguing about how unfair and unjust it is that they don’t have control of these monies. With an aging population I’d guess that protecting retirement funds will be a fairly major political battle in the coming years. You can bet that there will soon be arguments that these shouldn’t be inheritable by other than one’s spouse

  6. Dennis the Essential

    It’s amusing that he should choose the figure of £100,000 as this indicates that he has rather less than that himself.

    Exactly.

  7. You’re being quite generous with your annuity rates, Jim. A pension in line with those available to civil servants – starting at 60, RPI/CPI protected, 50% to surviving spouse – currently costs around £40 per £1 of pension (a bit more for those ‘unlucky’ enough to have XX chromosomes).

  8. As per Chris, I support spud’s call for a cap on civil service pensions of 2500 p.a. (lifetime limit on pension benefits that can be accrued).

  9. When I save into my ISA, I always do so in full knowledge that their long term existence is far more precarious than pension schemes are – I am not particularly confident that when I hit normal retirement age, that ISAs will exist in anything resembling their current form. Plenty of opportunities for future governments to cap total lifetime contributions, cut annual limits (at least in real terms), introduce some form of taxation that applies to ISAs (perhaps at a reduced rate compared to non-ISA taxes, perhaps a limit on higher rate income tax payers using ISAs like how they have their personal allowance illogically taken away, perhaps including them in some kind of wealth tax)…

    I think the biggest defence ISAs have is that in the short term it does suit governments for more people to use ISAs (pay tax now, less for the exchequer later) than pension schemes (tax-free contributions now, exchequer gets the tax revenue on the income later).

    But it’s now possible for people to have a million quid or so in their ISA and once something becomes a “tax break for millionaires” its days are likely numbered. A couple of decades ago, the contribution limits were so low that they couldn’t have formed a really serious chunk of a millionaire’s long term tax planning but even a multimillionaire might take them pretty seriously now. I doubt anyone with a net worth north of the tens of millions is particularly reliant on them though. Perhaps the financial whizzes here can confirm…

  10. Some years ago when Mitt Romney made his financial disclosures it was reported that he had something on the order of $20 million in his retirement accounts, having invested retirement funds in some of their private equity deals with good success. Even for Mitt that may be reasonably significant. Certainly he used retirement funds for these investments because the gains are sheltered from tax for so many years.

    Many people in good professional (but not elite) occupations such as engineers or nurses have after almost 40 years of saving in 401k and IRA accounts accumulated over a million dollars and often more (at least pre market decline). In many cases, barring extended illness, it will be more than what they need for retirement as many of these people will also receive pensions or social security. They will be in a position to leave something significant to their heirs. And here battle lines will be drawn between those who say these people have saved too much and inheritance is wrong vs those who have and want to preserve what may become something of a family pot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *