Evaluating an endowment policy for its fairness against other tax saving options in India such as PPF, EPF and even FDs
Or am missing something?  Yes. The rate of 8.53 is illustration. There is no guarantee that the rate will be applicable. My yearly premium is Rs. 26289. On this amount I will save tax of Rs. 7887. So net premium is Rs. 18402. The other way to look at this is invest Rs 26289 [or actually less of Eq Term Deposit premium]. If you invest into Eq Term Deposit [lock-in for 6 years] with tax benefits, your numbers are going to be very different and definitely better than LIC returns. Edits:
I wrote about this a while back: http://blog.investraction.com/2006/10/mutual-funds-dividend-option-or-growth.html In short: Growth options of a mutual fund scheme don't pay out any money, they reinvest the dividend they receive. Dividend options pay out some money, at different intervals, based on the surplus they accumulate. In India, the options have very similar underlying portfolios, so HDFC Equity Fund (Growth) and HDFC Equity Fund (dividend) will have the same percentage allocation to each stock. Update: I also have a video you might want to see on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx8QtnccfZk Yeah, the VAT adds more fairness between who gets the taxes, but is only offset by it being more complicated and needing more bureaucracy. I think it's an interesting idea. If I were a policy analyst I'd like to see what costs are vs. benefit. My understanding is that EWU (and EWUS) are both traded on US stock markets (NYSE & BATS), and as such these are not classified as PFIC. However, they do contain PFICs, so iShares takes the responsibility of handling the PFICs they contain and make adjustments in December. This contains the information about the adjustments made in 2016. https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/tax-information/pfic-2016.pdf On page 106 of the statement of the summary information they describe how they handle paying the necessary tax as an expense of the fund. https://www.ishares.com/us/library/stream-document?stream=reg&product=WEBXGBP&shareClass=NA&documentId=925898~926077~926112~1180071~1242912&iframeUrlOverride=%2Fus%2Fliterature%2Fsai%2Fsai-ishares-trust-8-31.pdf (I'm not a tax professional) House rent allowance:7500 House Rent can be tax free to the extent [less of] Medical allowance : 800 Can be tax free, if you provide medical bills. Conveyance Allowance : 1250 Is tax free.  Apart from this, if you invest in any of the tax saving instruments, i.e. Specified Fixed Deposits, NSC, PPF, EPF, Tution Fees, ELSS, Home Loan Principal etc, you can get upto Rs 150,000 deductions. Additional Rs 50,000 if you invest into NPS. If you have a home loan, upto Rs 200,000 in interest can be deducted. So essentially if you invest rightly you need not pay any tax on the current salary, apart from the Rs 200 professional tax deducted. "What is a 403b? A 403(b) plan is a tax-advantaged retirement savings plan available for public education organizations, some non-profit employers (only US Tax Code 501(c)(3) organizations), cooperative hospital service organizations and self-employed ministers in the United States. Kind of a rare thing. A bit more here: http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/teacheroptions.htm under investment options Equity Indexed Annuities are a special type of contract between you and an insurance company. During the accumulation period — when you make either a lump sum payment or a series of payments — the insurance company credits you with a return that is based on changes in an equity index, such as the S&P 500 Composite Stock Price Index. The insurance company typically guarantees a minimum return. Guaranteed minimum return rates vary. After the accumulation period, the insurance company will make periodic payments to you under the terms of your contract, unless you choose to receive your contract value in a lump sum. For more information, please see our ""Fast Answer"" on Equity Indexed Annuities, and read FINRA's investor alert entitled Equity-Indexed Annuitiies — A Complex Choice. So perhaps ""equity indexed annuities"" is the more correct thing to search for and not ""insurance funds""?" In my experiences most hedge funds won't have a benchmark in their mandate and are evaluated based upon absolute returns.  Their benchmarks are generally cash + x basis points.  So, no attribution and no IR.  No experience at all with CTA's though, so not sure how things are there. "Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here.  I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists.  A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer   would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly   compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund   of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its   discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for   the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in   information services and manages the computers that process his firm's   401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this:  To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid   employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's   ""highly compensated"" employees, based on the average deferral by the   company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated   employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives   are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced   via ""non-discrimination testing"". Non-discrimination testing takes the   deferral rates of ""highly compensated employees"" (HCEs) and compares   them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is   defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in   2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any   time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the   $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the   top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by   compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year   is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross   compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned   more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for   the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross   compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is   HCE and who is a NHCE. The threshold was $110,000 in 2010 and it did   not change for 2011. The average deferral percentage (ADP) of all HCEs, as a group, can be   no more than 2 percentage points greater (or 125% of, whichever is   more) than the NHCEs, as a group. This is known as the ADP test. When   a plan fails the ADP test, it essentially has two options to come into   compliance. It can have a return of excess done to the HCEs to bring   their ADP to a lower, passing, level. Or it can process a ""qualified   non-elective contribution"" (QNEC) to some or all of the NHCEs to raise   their ADP to a passing level. The return of excess requires the plan   to send a taxable distribution to the HCEs (or reclassify regular   contributions as catch-up contributions subject to the annual catch-up   limit for those HCEs over 50) by March 15 of the year following the   failed test. A QNEC must be an immediately vested contribution. The annual contribution percentage (ACP) test is similarly performed   but also includes employer matching and employee after-tax   contributions. ACPs do not use the simple 2% threshold, and include   other provisions which can allow the plan to ""shift"" excess passing   rates from the ADP over to the ACP. A failed ACP test is likewise   addressed through return of excess, or a QNEC or qualified match   (QMAC). There are a number of ""safe harbor"" provisions that can allow a   company to be exempted from the ADP test. This includes making a ""safe   harbor"" employer contribution to employees' accounts. Safe harbor   contributions can take the form of a match (generally totaling 4% of   pay) or a non-elective profit sharing (totaling 3% of pay). Safe   harbor 401(k) contributions must be 100% vested at all times with   immediate eligibility for employees. There are other administrative   requirements within the safe harbor, such as requiring the employer to   notify all eligible employees of the opportunity to participate in the   plan, and restricting the employer from suspending participants for   any reason other than due to a hardship withdrawal." In the US the best way to solve the problem, IMHO, would be via a trust. Talk to a properly licensed trust/estate attorney and a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). Using intermediary who's not a 501(c) organization may pose income tax issues to that intermediary as providing support to the needy is not a valid business expense. It may also pose gift tax issues, since the aggregate amounts may exceed the statutory exemption limits. Using a (non-revokable) trust you can avoid these issues, but others may come up (such as what to do with the trust income or undistributed moneys). Talk to the advisers about how to avoid them. I believe you are talking about Public Provident Fund and National Savings Certificate schemes in India. PPF -> Deposit money -> If you want to take a loan after 3 years, you can take out 25% of the balance in your PPF account. NSC -> Money locked for 6 years and can only be encashed after 3 years, you cancel your deposit and encash all your money. Money is safe in both cases, because they are secured by the Indian government. But interest(8.75% at present for both in 2014-15 financial year) is compunded anually for PPF, but half yearly for NSC. So you get a higher interest rate in case of NSC. So if you can lock in your money, without any need for withdrawls, choose a NSC for higher returns. Tax rebate wise, both are same. IRS Pub 561 says you have to use fair market value.  You cannot simply use a depreciated value. You should attempt to determine what people normally pay for comparable items, and be prepared to defend your determination with evidence in the event of an audit. I would point this out to the committee or other entity in charge of handling this at work. They do have a fiduciary responsibility for the participant's money and should take anything reasonable seriously. The flip side to this is 95% of participants -- especially participants under 35 or so -- really pay next to no attention to this stuff. We consider it a victory to get people to pony up the matching contributions. Active participation in investment would blow our minds. If ordinary income tax rates and contribution rates to tax-advantaged retirement accounts are held constant, It's net negative to the extent that the average retirement account return exceeds the risk-free rate. Rather than pushing money into Roth accounts, the government could leave traditional 401(k)s unchanged, borrow the difference in up-front tax revenue that it's foregoing by doing so, and repay that debt as the tax revenue from traditional 401(k) disbursements comes in. Net of interest on the additional debt, the latter strategy would increase the government's total tax revenue by an amount proportional to the average excess return of the affected retirement accounts, with essentially no downside (other than messaging) relative to the strategy that's being proposed.  Of course, in reality it's likely that retirement savings rates would decline as a result of the change, so that would partially offset the overall reduction in tax revenue. However, the downsides of reduced retirement savings rates arguably far outweigh that benefit. (That's why tax-advantaged retirement accounts exist in the first place.) Read this.  https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans  The example makes it very clear. Sorry, you cannot transfer EPF into PPF. The investments in PPF are limited to 150,000 per year. Withdrawal is in 7th year, i.e. After completion of 6 financial years. 50% of the Balance of 4th year can be withdrawn. 2.Withdraw the money and find a new form of investment. This is definitely possible. A lump sum investment into NPS [New Pension Scheme] or various Retirement schemes, or equity / real estate etc Is there any other 3rd solution for this situation? Keep the money AS-IS as the money will still continue to grow. The interest is stop getting accrued after 3 years of NO contribution. Within 36 months if an account will not get any deposit then it will be considered as dormant/inactive account. So you can wait for sometime before you decide to withdraw. Thank you fgunthar. I was not aware of ILWs, but I agree - this is also the closest thing I've found.   As for starting a fund, I'm unfortunately nowhere near that point. But, my curiosity seems to inevitably lead me to obscure areas like ILWs.