Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,596
I think the exit tax rate will be cut. Stroke of a pen.
This is a mirage. Somebody pays the 1% levy - guess who?Not really, since you can just get 101% allocation to offset the levy.
This is a mirage. Somebody pays the 1% levy - guess who?
You should probably mark this as sarcasmThe life assurance companies dictate savings/investment taxation policy to Government/Revenue so clearly it's in their interest to pile as much misery as possible on those who want to buy ETFs outside of a wrapper product. Rumour has it that they're pushing for a 2% Levy on investment amounts and reducing the 8 years to 5 years, just for ETFs. They're trying to distort the market in such a way as to drive those serpent EFT platforms from our shores.
They would really be sticking up the 2 fingers to minister mcgrath (former) and the whole public submission on review of the funds sector if they were to totally ignore those public submissions and actually push more to the extreme. If thats the case then the life assurance companies are a bit like Putin's oligarchs pulling the levers in the backround and to hell with the minister and public submissions.Rumour has it that they're pushing for a 2% Levy on investment amounts and reducing the 8 years to 5 years, just for ETFs. They're trying to distort the market in such a way as to drive those serpent EFT platforms from our shores.
This is a charge which other UCITs don't pay. The 1% extra allocation has to be seen in the context of the other charges, notably the AMC. If a life company has the same AMC as a UCITs but an extra 1% allocation then sure, compared to the UCITs, it is has borne the charge and is working on a lower profit margin. But regarding the 1% extra allocation in isolation is meaningless. One might as well argue that companies bear the initial commission if there is not a reduced allocation.In the context of this thread, the product provider.
The industry has been lobbying against the levy and for a reduction in exit tax to match DIRT. The previous post is clearly sarcasm.They would really be sticking up the 2 fingers to minister mcgrath (former) and the whole public submission on review of the funds sector if they were to totally ignore those public submissions and actually push more to the extreme. If thats the case then the life assurance companies are a bit like Putin's oligarchs pulling the levers in the backround and to hell with the minister and public submissions.
judging by some of the "clarifications" they brought in regarding ETFs over last 5 years it actually looked plausibleThe industry has been lobbying against the levy and for a reduction in exit tax to match DIRT. The previous post is clearly sarcasm.
The previous post is clearly sarcasm.
If not soon, then when?
Unless you’ve seen something I have not, there has been no recent indication that changes will be made favourable to investing in ETFs?The government said there was not enough time to implement these changes for this budget. One would hope that the changes will surely occur in next year's budget then, assuming a similar government in place, at the latest?
thats what internet forums are for, discussion. Ireland is an outlier regarding this taxation so its not unreasonable to speculate on whats really behind it. Sure you yourself have been the main proponent of the fact that it is the life assurance companies that are really throwing sand into the gears regarding deemed disposal and ETFs. Also you seem to have inside knowledge of the industry, and your contributions have been very enlightening and welcome.Indeed.
It was an attempt to bring a bit of balance to the conspiracy theorist who, since Feb (?) of this year, have convinced themselves that something else more sinister is afoot, even though deemed disposal is around since 2006.
If you don't like something and you're not getting your way, you sit on your backside and look for someone else to blame, rather than being proactive and addressing the issue with those that have the power to change it.
Sure you yourself have been the main proponent of the fact that it is the life assurance companies that are really throwing sand into the gears regarding deemed disposal and ETFs
Ah yes, from deposit accounts to start ups. The logical next move, and nothing could possibly go wrongIn May McGrath said “I’d like to see a significant share of those funds [€150bn in bank accounts] being put to more productive use in the economy, investing in structures that help to fund and support early-stage and innovative businesses,”.
Life company A has 101% allocation, .75% AMCIt's in a KID as an entry charge equivalent to 0.15% pa. If you can get a provider to cover the cost of it then that reduces that charge to 0.00. The provider still has to hand the 1% to Government.
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?