I presume that this might suggest that some (many?) people take up an invitation from their bank for a "financial review" or otherwise just deal with the divil they know and end up signing up for a pension through them as tied agents? No harm in that if it means that they have some pension cover rather than none, but presumably they're probably not getting the best deal possible on charges and maybe also on asset allocation/lifestyling?interesting to note that the biggest writers of such business have ties with banks.
Ah, yes, I was focused on the pension aspect rather than the non-pension general investment aspect.My point was specific to single premium life business though, as it's lower hanging fruit for the bank to enrich the management & shareholders.
What happened to Caledonian Life?
I think Ark Life ended up with Irish Life, but they were passed around a bit so it's hard to remember where they finished up.
It's non-pension business where only one premium is paid at the commencement of the policy. It could be any of those types you mention, but most likely to be an investment subject to exit tax.Single Premium Life Business -
No wonder it's not growing! Everybody loses with Exit tax.but most likely to be an investment subject to exit tax
I don't like the deemed disposal/exit tax regime, but this is simply incorrect. No gain (or a loss), no tax. If there is a gain then tax is deducted and the investor benefits from the net growth. And the exchequer also benefits from the tax. In the gain scenario everybody doesn't lose - quite the opposite.Everybody loses with Exit tax.
Not true. You get taxed on unrealized gains, which are not real gains. You also can get taxed on a loss. If you hold 2 ET funds and 1 makes a gain and the other makes a larger loss, you make a loss, but you still pay tax on the gain.No gain (or a loss), no tax
You lose the massive benefit of compounding your gain. I've shown before that the 8 year DD costs the investor >50K and gives the taxman an extra 2K of tax vs the normal CGT regime.If there is a gain then tax is deducted and the investor benefits from the net growth
I can't directly prove it, but it is my strong belief that the exchequer would collect more tax if they scrapped exit tax, because a) more people would invest and b) their investment outcomes would be so much better. One example of this is shown directly above, there is no growth in LEAT funds. Meanwhile there has been huge increases in CGT receipts.And the exchequer also benefits from the tax.
Don't forget the 1% premium levyNo gain (or a loss), no tax
I've an old Quinn Life one that charges ~1% which could be better.
Do we know what the fees on these products are?
15 years?Are you sure it's not (now) 0.5% as I've a recollection of them promising to reduce the 1% to 0.5% after 10 (?) years. You'd see it on your account where value/units are added back.
Original headline AMCs are listed here. Subtract 0.5% if your investment is 15+ years old.I've an old Quinn Life one that charges ~1% which could be better.
Not true. You get taxed on unrealized gains, which are not real gains. You also can get taxed on a loss. If you hold 2 ET funds and 1 makes a gain and the other makes a larger loss, you make a loss, but you still pay tax on the gain.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?