National Solidarity Bond - is it any good?

Details of the National Solidarity Bond were announced last week, the idea having first surfaced in the most recent Budget speech. The idea is that you invest an amount of money from €500 to €250,000 for a period of ten years, after which you get a State-guaranteed return of 50%, which is fixed from the outset.

In further detail, the return is 50% Gross over 10 years (AER 4.14%) consisting of 10% in 10 annual payments of 1% which are subject to DIRT at the prevailing rate (currently 25%) plus a 40% Tax free lump sum at the end of 10 years.

The net after tax return is 47.5% (AER 3.96%) assuming DIRT remains at 25%. Minimum investment is €500. Maximum individual investment is €250,000 (or €500,000 from 2 joint applicants or €750,000 from 3 joint applicants). If you do not have €500 to invest there is a facility to save through regular lodgements. You can access your money at any time by giving 7 days notice. There are no fees, charges or sales commissions.

The money will be used by the Irish Government. As the blurb says - "The Government of Ireland wants to make it easy for residents of Ireland to help to fund the Government’s capital investment programme, develop important infrastructure, stimulate economic recovery and create employment."

Looking at it purely as an investment option, I'd say it should only be considered by someone who is 100% sure they do not need access to their savings earlier than ten years as otherwise the rate of return will be just 0.75% per year after DIRT tax, which is paltry. If you are going to leave it for the 10 years, the return of 4.14% per year, before DIRT tax, isn't going to make you rich but it may be useful as a safe haven alternative to bank deposits for some long-term cash. This of course assumes you have confidence that a guarantee by the Irish State is a safe haven.

It is irritating that the 1% levy on other savings & investment products doesn't apply to this bond, which is an example of the Government using the tax laws to suit their own causes.

Further details available here.

(Note: This product is not available via brokers. The above article should be considered a personal opinion and not professional advice.)

Public Servants should consider retiring now

I recently looked at a pension projection for a 61 year old hospital consultant, working for a HSE hospital. The projection gave him details of his pension and lump sum from the superannuation scheme should he retire now, as well as the projected figures if he stays to age 65.

The twist, however, is the fact that the projections take no account of the 15% salary reduction to which he will be subjected, as a result of Budget 2010. Because public service pensions are based on a percantage of final salary, if your salary is reduced by 15%, your pension will be also.

But in the Budget, a window of opportunity was provided. "To ensure that any increase in the number of retirements can be managed, the legislation on pay reductions in the public service will provide that any retirements in 2010 would be on existing, pre-cut pay terms." So any Public Servant retiring in 2010 will have their pension based on 2009 salary level.

Given that Public Service pensions accrue at a rate of 1/80 or 1.25% of final salary for each year of service, a higher earner facing a pay cut of 15% would take 12 years to build up the lost pension entitlement, unless pay increases come back into fashion during that period. Someone facing a pay cut of 8% would take over 6 years to build up the lost pension entitlement.

So if you're a Public Servant and within sight of pension age, you might do well to consider retiring now. Which is presumably a deliberate move by the Minister.

Poor response to second-home tax

I blogged earlier this month here about the €200 tax on second homes. Today is the final day for payment of this tax. According to RTE, only €15 million has been collected to date. That's 75,000 houses out of a potential 200,000.

Anyone eligible who doesn't pay this faces penalties.

New style of pension tax relief

Credit where it's due to the Commission on Taxation for taking a long-term view on reform of pensions legislation, rather than concentrating on how money could be saved in the short term. Many of their proposals on pensions are largely focused on making pension planning more attractive, rather than cutting costs. Given the changing demographics of our country, this is very welcome, especially since short-term cost-cutting might have been an easier sell to the Government in the current climate.

One of their more interesting proposals is that the idea of "tax relief" on pensions should be replaced with a more transparent system, whereby for every €1.60 an individual contributes to a pension plan, the Government adds €1.00. For the first five years, the Government would match contributions €1.00 for €1.00.

This system would deal with the age-old perceived inequality that our current system offers more benefit to higher-rate taxpayers than to those on the lower rate. It is the equivalent of offering 50% tax relief for five years, then 38% relief thereafter. To take an example of a pension plan that exists for 25 years, that's the equivalent of an average rate of tax relief of over 40%. This is lower than what many high rate taxpayers currently enjoy but higher than what low rate taxpayers are currently offered.

Perhaps more importantly, it's simple. The idea of the Government putting money into your pension plan directly somehow sounds more appealing than the current tax relief system, even though tax relief is also the Government adding money to your pension plan - just expressed in a different way.

Let's hope Brian Lenihan pushes this one through. Radical pensions reform can tend to take an age to implement, as I've said before, even though Charlie McCreevy proved that it doesn't have to.

The pensions section of the Commission's report can be read here.

Pensions Apartheid: Public vs Private Sector pensions

Well-known independent actuary Tony Gilhawley recently wrote a report for the Professional Insurance Brokers Association on the differences between Public Sector and Private Sector pensions. It makes for fascinating reading.

You can download it in MSWord format from here.

Make your pension contribution early

There has been some confusion over the Supplementary Budget's 1% levy on life assurance policy premiums, which takes effect on 1/6/2009. It's not 100% clear whether or not this applies to pension contributions as well as life assurance premiums. We are awaiting clarification on this.

Got a note from Hibernian Aviva today - "Hibernian Aviva Life & Pensions Ltd is working with the Irish Insurance Federation and other life assurance companies to clarify the impact of the proposed levy and we are seeking to mitigate its effect on customers.

We want to assure you that we will be doing everything we can to lobby the Department of Finance to re-think the imposition of this proposed levy and to convey to them the potential damage that it will have on the Life & Pensions industry."

I fully support their efforts, as adding a levy like this to a pension product is simply a reduction in the tax relief by another name.

However, if this is going to be the case, there's a strong argument in favour of making pension contributions prior to 1/6/2009 and thus avoiding the 1% levy. This would be especially relevant to the self-employed who would normally pay their annual pension contributions in October or November.

Should banks allow penalty-free breaks from fixed rates?

As anyone with a variable or tracker variable rate mortgage will gleefully tell you, the European Central Bank (ECB) have slashed interest rates repeatedly since October 2008, down to their current low of 1.25%.

But this will be of no use to someone who is on a fixed rate mortgage, where the repayments are fixed for an agreed period of time. If you attempt to break out of a fixed rate, you must pay a substantial penalty, which generally renders the exercise worthless.

I usually hold the opinion that if you enter into a contract with your eyes open, you must deal with the consequences if it doesn't go your way.

But on this issue, I feel there is some merit in a proposal for a once-off amnesty where owner-occupier mortgage-holders get a brief "window" of time to break out of a fixed rate entered into prior to October 2008 without penalty.

In Brian Lenihan's Budget speech, he said "The Government has decided that from the 1st of May, Mortgage Interest Relief for principal private residences should only be available for the first seven tax years of the mortgage. I believe this move is justified given the significant recent reduction in interest rates and in house prices."

He is using the rate decreases as a justification for a reduction in TRS, but those on a fixed rate don't benefit from such decreases.

The ECB rate cuts were designed to stimulate the economy, but this aim will be diluted by all those on fixed rates.

As has been said before, these are unprecedented times - perhaps there is scope for one more unprecedented action?

What will this Budget achieve?

I'm struggling to find too many positives about yesterday's Budget.

I do accept the need for tax increases and spending cuts in the current climate.

But the overall strategy of this budget baffles me. He reduces incentive to save money, by increasing DIRT tax, CGT and Exit Tax on investments. This at a time when interest rates are very low anyway and most other investments are going through a very volatile period.

So if he doesn't want us to save, maybe he wants us to go out and spend instead, thus putting much-needed money back into the economy, right?

Wrong - he increases levies and reduces reliefs so that people will have less money to spend.

So what does he really hope to achieve?

Fear of Budget good for business

Although the r-word hasn't exactly been good for business, there have been two noticeable trends of recent days and weeks: -

(1) Self-employed people deciding to invest money in Personal Pension arrangements this week, in case the April 7th Budget changes rules on tax relief.

(2) Older people deciding to draw their pension benefits this week, in case the April 7th Budget imposes tax on lump sums with immediate effect.

It seems reasonable to assume that there will be some changes to pension legislation in next week's Budget, though only Brian Lenihan and a select few know what form they will take. But if the fear factor causes a bit of a rush, who am I to complain?