ISA v Regular savings

Bas2303

I have a small savings account paying zilch interest so want to move it. I have no ISA this year and could put in £5,100 but I am also want ot save £200 a month so not sure whether it would be better to do a drip feed. I am a (just) higher rate tax payer -husband has no income so not sure of bestway forward. Too much conflicting advice that i have previously reverted to "do nothing" philosophy but I realise I am only losing out. A little help please.

2010

You can`t drip feed into this years ISA because on April 6th,it`s gone forever.
Put the £5100 in before then or lose the tax free.
Santander has just brought out an ISA paying 3.5%, get in quick.

http://www.santander.co.uk/csgs/Satellite?appID=abbey.internet.Abbeycom&c=Page&canal=CABBEYCOM&cid=1237855061169&empr=Abbeycom&leng=en_GB&pagename=Abbeycom/Page/WC_ACOM_TemplateW2

Consumerist

If you are under 50, you can only put £3,600 into this year's cash ISA. You can put the rest into next year's [after 6 April] and then drip feed into it until you reach the £5,100 limit for next year.

You might want to consider a joint savings account so that you can use some of your partner's tax allowance when it comes to tax on the interest. This, of course should only be considered once you have used up your own cash ISA allowance.
.

cyclonebri1

2010 wrote: »

You can`t drip feed into this years ISA because on April 6th,it`s gone forever.
Put the £5100 in before then or lose the tax free.
Santander has just brought out an ISA paying 3.5%, get in quick.

http://www.santander.co.uk/csgs/Satellite?appID=abbey.internet.Abbeycom&c=Page&canal=CABBEYCOM&cid=1237855061169&empr=Abbeycom&leng=en_GB&pagename=Abbeycom/Page/WC_ACOM_TemplateW2

Problem is with all these dam things is that they run for 1 year only and then revert to pathetic interest rates, the Santander one is no exception. You then have the hassle of finding an isa provider giving a good rate who will accept previous isa funds.

As a fervent saver, I honestly think there is some sort of conspiracy amongst the banks to ensure isa rates are kept well below where they should actually be expected to be.

Most are beatable after tax deducted if you search out the options:money:

2010

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Problem is with all these dam things is that they run for 1 year only and then revert to pathetic interest rates, the Santander one is no exception. You then have the hassle of finding an isa provider giving a good rate who will accept previous isa funds.

As a fervent saver, I honestly think there is some sort of conspiracy amongst the banks to ensure isa rates are kept well below where they should actually be expected to be.

Most are beatable after tax deducted if you search out the options:money:

Couldn`t agree more.

tradetime

As a fervent saver, I honestly think there is some sort of conspiracy amongst the banks to ensure isa rates are kept well below where they should actually be expected to be.

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, it's just the greedy banksters helping themselves to your tax allowance, as you say many ISA rates can be beaten by regular savings accounts even after tax. The government says you can have a certain amount tax free, and the banksters say," hmmn, we'll just pay a lower rate, and we'll pocket the difference."

Consumerist

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

. . . they run for 1 year only and then revert to pathetic interest rates . . .

Unfortunately this is just as true for non-ISA savings accounts.
.

2010

tradetime wrote: »

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, it's just the greedy banksters helping themselves to your tax allowance, as you say many ISA rates can be beaten by regular savings accounts even after tax. The government says you can have a certain amount tax free, and the banksters say," hmmn, we'll just pay a lower rate, and we'll pocket the difference."

Couldn`t agree more.

2010

Consumerist wrote: »

Unfortunately this is just as true for non-ISA savings accounts.
.

Yes but non Isa`s are easier to move.
Cash ISA have to be transferred or the tax free is lost.
This is also another major gripe about the time it takes to transfer and the interest lost in the process.

cyclonebri1

Consumerist wrote: »

Unfortunately this is just as true for non-ISA savings accounts.
.

I don't think it is to be honest, at least you have the option of 1,2,3 or 4 or 5 years with a fixed rate bond???

I cannot figure the reason banks will not pay "the going rate" for isa's when the difference is only in the tax paid if there is not a conspiracy afoot, hmmmmmmm, government ownership, am I smelling a rat????

Seriously, all is not as we are lead to believe:mad:

rb10

2010 wrote: »

This is also another major gripe about the time it takes to transfer and the interest lost in the process.

I think that the major gripe is that most banks still insist on sending ISA transfers by cheque.

If some can do it by BACS (significantly reducing the transfer time), and have been for some time, then why can't they all?