UK Govt to ensure savers get money back

sss555s

So there are a number of issues here:

1. The number of savers and the total liability in Icesave is quite low, so the cost to the UK is relatively small. Really! Perhaps you could pay it all yourself then? :rolleyes:

2. That said, the political and economic ramifications of the UK government not backing UK citizens with savings in Icesave are potentially massive. Icesave was regulated by the FSA and therefore allowed to trade in this country. If depositors lose their money, what does this say about the FSA and the riskiness of all banks trading here, not just foreign banks? Second, if the government doesn't protect Icesave depositors in the UK, it demonstrates that it doesn't care about these citizens and we should therefore all be afraid! It would certainly be political suicide. I suspect the government was thinking more of the voters than the savers
3. Like the "snowball effect", if some depositors lose their life savings/pension funds, the knock-on to the wider economy could be large and everyone will end-up suffering. What planet exactly have you been living on for the last 20 years? :eek:

With regards to the implication that Icesave depositors are reckless/greedy or can in some way afford to lose their money, I can only say that is an easy thing to allege if you are of below-average intelligence and have no understanding of the economy! I think the way you read it and have acted like anyone who doesnt agree with you is low inteligence tells us all about your inteligence

Banks are historically safe places to put your money. It is prudent to put savings in a high-interest account, and it is not unreasonable to expect that a bank regulated by the FSA and underwritten by a compensation scheme involving a number of different countries should be safe. I also agree that the it's fair to say the savers should be entitled to what the agreement says, even if the UK tax payer has to pay for it.

As for being able to afford losing their money, well I am on a low income and have a relatively small amount of savings in Icesave (just a few thousand pounds). I had earmarked this money to pay off some mortgage to protect myself from negative equity. If I lost it I could end-up defaulting and eventually becoming bankrupt! Any notions of having kids before I'm 40 would also be eradicated. Does that sound like someone who can afford to lose his savings? That's fair enough and i agree you should be covered up to the agreed limit. If your attitude to having kids is based on having enough money then when is enough. We all manage when we have to.


I'm glad it's all went the right way for the savers and if you think your so right i guess you have no lessons to learn from this event?

I'm quite sure most people will have learned a lesson from this wheather they had money in Icesave or not.

sss555s

surmees wrote: »

To the ray of sunshine that is Nick C

Im 23, Im single, I live with my parents (out of neccessity, not choice), Im healthy, I pay taxes, I also own a car and pay plenty of tax for that!
As far as I can tell I pay my taxes and get nothing back for it.

Why should I pay for all those life saving cancer treatments?
Why should I pay for winter fuel for the elderly?
Why should I pay for the state pension?
Why should I pay for people who are unable to work?
Why should I pay when people are unable to find work?

After all its not my fault any of these things happen!

I did my homework. I paid into a savings account backed up by a compensation scheme. I didnt invest money into anything risky. I was not greedy. I just didnt listen to rumours like you did.
Apologies for not being as financially 'astute' (lucky) as you.

Now dont you need to get back to campaigning for compulsory euthanasia for the tax burden that is the over 75s?

That's part of living and working in the UK mate.

If you choose to invest out side the UK then why should the UK tax payer bail you out?

Anyway i'm glad it's all worked out for the best for all the savers and you'll get every penny and hope we have all learned something from it. But there is a cost to this so if your a "i'm alright Jack" then cheer away and if you have a conscience then accept the help gracefully.

Nick_C

surmees wrote: »

I didnt invest money into anything risky. I was not greedy. I just didnt listen to rumours like you did.
Apologies for not being as financially 'astute' (lucky) as you.

Now dont you need to get back to campaigning for compulsory euthanasia for the tax burden that is the over 75s?

I realise I am probably wasting my time responding to someone who has to stoop to personal abuse in place of reasoned argument, but I am truly astonished that you still cannot understand, after all that has happened in the last 24 hours, that saving in in overseas bank that was not fully protected by the UKs FSCS was risky.

Eezageeza

sss555s wrote: »

1. The number of savers and the total liability in Icesave is quite low, so the cost to the UK is relatively small. Really! Perhaps you could pay it all yourself then? :rolleyes:

You are right that it shouldn't be taken for granted, but my point is that the cost is low to try to maintain confidence, whether that is private depositors or banks lending to one another.

sss555s wrote: »

3. Like the "snowball effect", if some depositors lose their life savings/pension funds, the knock-on to the wider economy could be large and everyone will end-up suffering. What planet exactly have you been living on for the last 20 years? :eek:

It's all about investor confidence. See?

sss555s wrote: »

I think the way you read it and have acted like anyone who doesnt agree with you is low inteligence tells us all about your inteligence

This from someone who can't spell "intelligence"? You're right though, perhaps calling someone low intelligence was unwarranted.

In any case, the way I have "acted" is to put forth some reasoned arguments against unsubstantiated, small-minded views. It is people like those who think "their tax money shouldn't help other people" who have partly got us into this mess.

sss555s wrote: »

I'm quite sure most people will have learned a lesson from this wheather they had money in Icesave or not.

Agreed. I have learned from this, as we all have. The unthinkable CAN happen. Best to put your money in a few institutions, even if you have less than a total of £50k.

Nick_C

Eezageeza wrote: »

The unthinkable CAN happen. Best to put your money in a few institutions, even if you have less than a total of £50k.

One of the most sensible comments I have read today! Totally agree. Would advise splitting savings between Banks, Building Societies, and NS&I.

Even if your money is protected, it could take some time to get at it if another bank collapses, so spread it around.

altocumulus

Nick_C wrote: »

One of the most sensible comments I have read today! Totally agree. Would advise splitting savings between Banks, Building Societies, and NS&I.

Even if your money is protected, it could take some time to get at it if another bank collapses, so spread it around.

I do, I do, I do..... :j

sss555s

Eezageeza wrote: »

This from someone who can't spell "intelligence"? In any case, the way I have "acted" is to put forth some reasoned arguments against unsubstantiated, small-minded views. It is people like those who think "their tax money shouldn't help other people" who have partly got us into this mess. You're right though, perhaps calling someone low intelligence was unwarranted.

Well spotted and the fact you agree you have learned something shows i'm not the only person caught out having a small minded view

I think though the government had to do so much, they are still buying votes with the tax payers revenue.

mr_jetlag

I would highly recommend a new bank I've set up called Sealy Bank. The interest is low but has the best "instant access" policy ever (reach under the bed and...)

For the record, I am not wholly joking, I've just put £2k out of the reach of these !!!!!! bankers and into an emergency "ready cash" box. You could say that's a risk, well the peace of mind makes it worth it.

Eezageeza

Yes. The issues I have had with people on this board (not just this thread) are that:

1. People who put money in Icesave were somehow greedy and/or stupid/reckless.
2. The UK government/tax payers' money should not cover those depositors.

It's easy to be wise after the event. In fact, economists do this all the time. However, I would hope it's clear that Icesave depositors were unlucky rather than stupid/greedy, and that the UK government had to step in as part of its measures to try and restore investor confidence, because the wider implications to us all are not good (although it shouldn't be taken for granted). If that's a small-minded view, then I guess I'm small-minded! I agree that there is probably a political element to it as well, but I for one won't vote for Labour again, even if they have done the right thing this time.

TuftyMatt

home_alone,

I am far from an idiot but do feel those who had over the protected limit in this or any other account deserve a little slap to act as a wake up call.

For the record my holding is £25k and would have never gone above £35 or £50k as it now stands for fear of not ever seeing it again.

The rules are clear for all to see if they wish to look but far to many people walk around with blinkers on thinking this will not happen to me.

The big city boys worldwide have messed things up and WE will all pay for it in one way or another as time goes on.

You do not say if you have over the protected limit or not but if so ask yourself one question. Did you honestly know your money was not covered or did you just take a chance? If you took a chance then like with everything else in life one day your luck will run out.

I am not saying that all money above the protected limit should be lost but a little slap may make people not make the same mistake in future.