Because the higher tax bill comes with higher returns/diversification from ETFs.
Last edited:
Because the higher tax bill comes with higher returns/diversification from ETFs.I can see a switch in what you pay tax on. But are you saying your overall tax bill will increase (Laffer)? If so, why would you want this. If not, why would the Revenue want this?
Yes, currently ISA annual limit is £20k. SIPPS are a form of pension so I guess we do have that.This country compared to the UK is completely anti-investing to the general public to provide for their retirement. UK has ISAS/SIPPs for example where there is tax relief on entry and no exit tax. People that invest the max each year can comfortably accumulate 1 million after 20 years. The UK have also eliminated their pension fund threshold for the more wealthy. The 2 million threshold here will mean better paid public servants in their 50s will take early retirement when they exceed this limit to avoid punitive tax on anything above the limit.
Yup.The 2 million threshold here will mean better paid public servants in their 50s will take early retirement when they exceed this limit to avoid punitive tax on anything above the limit.
There are about 380k public servants and by my estimate a maximum of 1% of these would ever be impacted by the SFT as it stands.And that’s why SF’s proposal to further reduce the SFT is so dangerous. Hospital consultants will retire in their droves.
The SFT is only a concern for a tiny % of public sector employees - no doubt about that.I agree that a radical reduction would lead to a greater impact on public servants but I wouldn't design policy around this pretty small group.
Yes my overall tax bill will be higher (both in the 1st year and final (selling) year), But I will still be better off!But are you saying your overall tax bill will increase (Laffer)? If so, why would you want this.
Okay, so that is the same reason as @Corola gave.Yes my overall tax bill will be higher (both in the 1st year and final (selling) year), But I will still be better off!
I'm assuming 1% per annum better return with the ETF's (reasonable with lower fees, better diversification, passive mgmt etc.). My overall position will be better off within 1 year. The 1% difference compounds so the longer I leave the investment the better off I will be (both on a nominal and % basis). And the more tax I will pay (both on a nominal and % basis). Everybody wins as long as my 1% outperformance for ETFs holds true.
From the RTE scandal we find that Tubridy was entitled to "exit payments " on completing his contract with RTE which he then waived.
The humble ETF investor gets lumbered with exit taxes when he completes his contract , maybe revenue can waive these taxes now in the light of what's going on in RTE
Actually with ETF's you can get hit with Exit taxes even if you make a loss!The "humble" EFT investor only gets lumbered with exit taxes if their investment has made a profit.
100% for reform or a reduction in Exit Tax?100% - It's just a matter of when.
47 submission have been made already. The vast majority of those from individuals, I'd say.
The consultation process is open until 15th Sept.
Gerard
www.bond.ie
For distributing ETFs, at least, it would be an increase in tax for the "wealthy" if the income was instead treated like ordinary dividends. I imagine that left-wing populists like the idea of progressive tax rates rather than taxes that apply the same rate to everyone.I think reducing Exit Tax for the “”wealthy”” heading into a General Election against left-wing populists during an inflation crisis would be political suicide.
I had to laugh at that, people looking for money makeovers on this site with already huge pensions and salaries. Yet the person maybe wanting to put just 5000 euros into a global ETF is getting screwed with exit taxes and "deemed disposal " malarkeyYou don't have to be 'wealthy' to be saving €100/€200 per month into a savings plan for your kids education or to invest €5,000 in a unit-linked fund. The reach of life assurance exit tax is broad. Not everyone lives in the AAM World of €2m pension funds and make-overs that are jaw dropping to the less well-off.
Disagree. We have an incredibly complicated Exit Tax system (even Revenue themselves can't issue clear guidance on what does and doesn't qualify). It's manifestly unfair both in the way it taxes you on paper gains instead of real gains and ignores losses. It's administratively a complete nightmare (trying to keep track of the 8 year rule for multiple buys). It discourages the majority of people from investing in the product (ETFs) best suited to them. And it takes in hardly any extra tax. Your argument is lets make it ever so slightly less sh*t. It needs to be scraped or at least only applied to clearly defined, select Life products.I would love to see a lower headline figure for Exit Tax this budget even to 39%, it would make the fund/ETF space a bit more competitive. Figure out the deemed disposal and capital losses later. Just start getting that rate down.
Your crazy if you think that wealthy people pay Exit Tax. They do not. If you want to tax wealthy people then ......tax wealthy people. There is no point carving out a tiny slice of the tax code for extra taxes and hoping that wealthy people will be stupid enough or lazy enough to pay it.I think reducing Exit Tax for the “”wealthy”” heading into a General Election against left-wing populists during an inflation crisis would be political suicide.
Yes sorry I wasn't saying they were wealthy, it's what the headlines and opposition will be saying and what the government would need to counter. The opportunity for making reasoned arguments will be somewhat limited.You don't have to be 'wealthy' to be saving €100/€200 per month inbto a savings plan for your kids education or to invest €5,000 in a unit-linked fund. The reach of life assurance exit tax is broad. Not everyone lives in the AAM World of €2m pension funds and make-overs that are jaw dropping to the less well-off.
Agreed, I spend quite a bit of time on the sub and like it, I've seen you there helping people out. I didn't mean to seem critical of the members, I was just making the point that a fair chunk of the 47 submissions you mentioned have likely come from there, and any that I saw shared did not seem convincing.That sub is very informative on the thinking/questions of, what I would guess are mainly, young people. They have to be listened to too. A good few posts from folk in their late teens so I'd say the demographic there is totally different to here. They (mainly) want to do things for themselves and just need a small bit of guidance. Might be no harm if a few regulars visited there now and again and posted with the same handle as they have on here. Do good.
As above, my point is it won't have anything to do with what you/I think, it is about how it will be spun.Your crazy if you think that wealthy people pay Exit Tax. They do not. If you want to tax wealthy people then ......tax wealthy people. There is no point carving out a tiny slice of the tax code for extra taxes and hoping that wealthy people will be stupid enough or lazy enough to pay it.
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?