These Isas are a perk...for banks

By Richard Dyson for the Daily Mail
Updated: 00:01 BST, 26 September 2010

?

Nothing 最高潮の場面s the 減らすing 競争 の中で our banks more 効果的に than their 治療 of cash Isa savers.

Cash Isas are one of the most popular and 価値のある ways to save as 利益／興味 is 税金-解放する／自由な. And of all the cash I sas 利用できる, の中で the most popular at the moment, given very low 率s, are 直す／買収する，八百長をするd-率 accounts where money is tied up for one or two years.

But banks are ますます 差別するing against Isa savers by 支払う／賃金ing lower 率s on Isas than on 同一の 直す／買収する，八百長をするd-率 accounts that are not Isas.

For instance, last week Halifax was 支払う／賃金ing 3.3% 直す／買収する，八百長をするd for two years on its 非，不，無-Isa 保証（人）d Reserve account (not a bad 率).

But its 同等（の） two-year 直す／買収する，八百長をするd-率 Isa, with さもなければ 同一の 条件, paid 2.85%.

It is an 不公平な way to behave because it wipes out the 税金 perk, which is the cash Isa's 必須の 利益.

Someone who chose the higher 率, and then paid basic-率 税金 on the 利益／興味, would be only marginally worse off than the Isa saver 収入 the lesser 率 税金-解放する／自由な.

Taking this Halifax example, if you 投資するd the 年次の cash Isa allowance of £5,100, the 利益 of choosing the Isa over the higher-支払う／賃金ing but taxable account 作品 out at 概略で £20, on total 利益／興味 of about £300.

So the 利益 of choosing to 投資する in an Isa goes in the main part, it would seem, not to the saver but to Halifax.

That was never the 意向 behind Isas. If just one 会・原則 were doing this it wouldn't much 事柄. But where all the 会・原則s are up to the same trick, you begin to 結論する that 競争 is failing.

So as part of our 報告（する）／憶測 into the 明言する／公表する of 競争 の中で banks ? two years on from the 頂点（に達する） of the 危機 ? we analysed cash Isas, looking in particular at 会・原則s 申し込む／申し出ing 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 率s both with and without Isa status.

At 現在の, a staggering 17 会・原則s are doing what Halifax is doing ? 申し込む／申し出ing lower 率s on Isa accounts than on 同一の 非，不，無-Isa ones.

These providers 申し込む／申し出 a total of 28 Isa accounts where a higher 率 is 利用できる in 非，不，無-Isa accounts with さもなければ equal 条件.

The 十分な 名簿（に載せる）／表（にあげる） of 違反者／犯罪者s is too long to publish, but it 含むs building societies (物陰／風下d and 国家の Co unties, for instance) 同様に as 設立するd banks (Halifax, Santander, Northern 激しく揺する and HSBC) and 親族 newcomers to the best-buy （米）棚上げする／（英）提議するs (such as Aldermore and Bank of Cyprus).

If you look harder at the 名簿（に載せる）／表（にあげる） of 違反者／犯罪者s, you notice something else. Halifax, Saga, Birmingham Midshires and Lloyds, for instance, all appear.

But they 株 something else in ありふれた ? they are all owned by one banking group, the gigantic Lloyds, which swallowed up the former HBOS two years ago to become the biggest bank in the land.

Chelsea Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society are also on the 名簿（に載せる）／表（にあげる） and, in 事例／患者 you needed reminding, they too are one and the same, because Yorkshire 棒 to the 救助（する） of the 病んでいる Chelsea in late 2009.

Is it a coincidence these six 会・原則s, owned by just two groups, all 訴える手段／行楽地 to 類似の 策略s? I don't think so. 明らかに separate organisations that 落ちる within one group would not want to compete with each other, so why wouldn't they all behave in the same way?

Two years ago, almost to the day, 財政上の Mail 警告するd of the 危険s of the 'knight on a 黒人／ボイコット horse' ? a 言及／関連 to Lloyds' 引き継ぎ／買収 of HBOS ? pointing out that 減ずるd 競争 would lead to poorer 取引，協定s for savers and borrowers.

Now we are seeing it. We see it in the fact that mortgage and 貯金 率s are 密談する／（身体を）寄せ集めるing around 類似の levels, with few truly attractive, 辺ぴな 取引，協定s. And in the 事柄 of Isa 率s we are seeing it too, in this ますます uniform ? and 不公平な ? 治療 of savers.

On the 支配する of cash Isas, 副 総理大臣 Nick Clegg got himself into a 新たな展開 last week, appearing to 混乱させる 税金 回避 (which is against the 法律) with 税金 avoidance (which is perfectly permissible).

In an interview he 暗示するd that by 捜し出すing to 避ける 税金 legitimately, people were doing something morally 疑わしい, or fa iling in their 市民の 義務.

The truth is that there are not very many ways in which ordinary people can 避ける 税金.

And those few 適切な時期s that do 存在する ? such as Isas, 年金s, 株-save 計画／陰謀s, the gift-補佐官ing of charitable 寄付s, and so on ? don't seem 特に immoral.

They seem sensible. 財政上の Mail has for years helped readers 避ける 支払う／賃金ing 税金 needlessly and ? whatever Nick Clegg says ? we will continue to do so.