They both appear to offer high rates, but the bottom line is that these returns are less than the rate of inflation (even before Dirt) so you are still actually better off spending your money.

This also beg the question as to why are banks making a fanfare about these rates when they are already offering better deals on other accounts to attract SSIA money (see main story).

Could it be because the banks have no intention of keeping up the high rates of 6%+ on offer elsewhere once they have the SSIA loot in the bag?

AIB was first off the mark last week, offering to pay a two-year return of 8.35% for sums between Euro6,000 and Euro50,000.

That sounds high, particularly for the readers of one newspaper that forgot to mention that it was over two years and not one.

It works out at a smidgen over 4% per annum - before Dirt - compared to an annual in"ation rate approaching 5%.

The AIB press release claims that it "provides smaller depositors with access to money-market linked rates, an area which is normally the preserve of business and larger depositors".

But when you are getting sub-inflation returns and have no access to your money for two years, what is so great about that? Your money is literally wasting away.

Anglo Irish Bank's deal is a bit better at 8.8% (4.31% gross per annum) for its two-year fixed term deposit account.

And it also allows you access to 10% of the funds during the two-year term, which it claims is " a feature unmatched by its competitors".

However, it is also still a sub-inflation rate of return, and even moreso after Dirt is deducted.

All of this also raises the issue of why savers should be paying tax on losses not gains? Shouldn't interest be taxed after inflation, just as profits are taxed after expenses?