Jump to content

Talk:Personal equity plan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Questions

[edit]

Can PEP's be moved to ISA's? When can money be taken out of a PEP? (age or time limits?) What are the tax ramifications of moving and withdrawing? The article should cover these, but I didn't see it. - Taxman Talk 15:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

PEPs become ISAs on 2008-04-06. See edited main article. RPTB1 (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Equity PlanPersonal equity plan

Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOSCAPS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Proper name of a specific type of plan regulated by law. MOS says to capitalize proper names. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proper noun is being bandied about without proper definition. Why, then, is "single company PEP" not upcased? And "unit trusts"? And "general PEPs"? And "capital gains tax"? Tony (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the definition of proper noun that we have in the lead at MOS:CAPS is not bad; I don't know of a better definition that will keep WP based on reliable sources. For what reliable sources have to say about PEPs, I recommend this book search. It shows about 50/50 usage. Since it's not consistently capitalized in sources, we don't capitalize it in WP. Therefor: Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not consistently uppercased either. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 27 October 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 14:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Personal Equity PlanPersonal equity plan – Sorry, but I must request another look at this one despite the prior RM in 2011. Please see the recent RM discussions at Talk:Individual savings account and Talk:Tax-free savings account (an eight-article RM that included such pages as Individual pension plan and Registered retirement savings plan). Also see Individual retirement account and similar. This is not a proper noun. As the article says, this is about "a form of tax-privileged investment account" – thus, it is about a type of account, not one particular account. As the proper noun article says, "a class of entities" is a common noun, not a proper noun. Some writers use capital letters to indicate any special string of words or anything to be abbreviated with initials, but Wikipedia's convention is to use sentence case for topic names instead. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with all in your postscript except Thrift Savings Plan, which is a proper noun and invariably capitalized as such in the media. I believe there is only one Thrift Savings Plan, as opposed to many options for individual retirement accounts, health savings accounts, etc. Ignatzmicetalk 00:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.