The accounts would be at EU level not government level.
One way to achieve this is by introducing a European savings standard – a standardised, EU-wide set of savings products with potential tax incentives for eligible products.
No, the
standards would be agreed at EU level. But taxation is a member state competence, so for the standards actually to become applicable throughout the EU all 28 Member States would have to enact laws bringing their own tax codes into line with the standards. The accounts would still operate under national law, and would be taxed under national law.
I find it baffling how anyone could ever argue against making an ISA available in this country . . . The current investment climate here suits the government
I think you've answered your own question there.
The biggest loser from the introduction of ISA-type arrangements would be the government — they'd lose tax revenue.
So far as I can recall, the only tax-favoured savings/investment account we ever had in this country was the Special Savings Incentive Account, introduced under Charle McCreevy in 2001. The deal was:
- The taxpayer committed to pay up to €254/month into the account for 12 months.
- The state would top this up by another 25%/month (a 20% tax credit, paid directly into the account)
- The account could be invested in deposits, or in equities or equity-linked securities
- After 5 years, the account matured and you could take out the contributions, tax credit and accumulated return. (From memory, you could uplift earlier, but you would lose the tax credit and associated return.)
It was a one-off, and hasn't been repeated. Takeup was widespread — something like 40% of the adult population had an SSIA. It would be interesting to know how much SSIA funding went into deposits and how much went into equties, but I haven't seen a breakdown of that.
I think what made it politically feasible was:
(a) the fact that the economy was booming, and there were concerns about overheating, and it was seen as a mechanism for dampening demand by encouraging more household saving; and
(b) the relatively low contribution limits (€254 x 12 = €3048) meant that it wasn't a scheme that delivered the bulk of its benefit to people with high disposable income who could save/invest signficant amounts — no matter how wealthy you were, you couldn't put more than €3048 into an SSIA, so it couldn't be a framed as a tax break largely for the already wealthy.