UK Govt to ensure savers get money back

TuftyMatt

I am also unhappy that those with over 35k in their accounts will get bailed out and claim back the full 100%

Having said that I would rather help out some poor old granny with their life savings over a rich fat cat who cant add up anytime.

Far too many "Tim nice but dim" people in the City for me.

altocumulus

Nowhere did I read that the Iceland Passport scheme was dodgy.

Everything pointed to it being only slightly less attractive option to the full 100% FSCS, cumbersome but it was even suggested that compensation would be paid faster than by the FSCS.

I was persuaded to save in Icesave by the supposed protection offered by their membership of the EEA and the supposedly legal jargon of the guarantee. That this guarantee was not worth the paper or screen space it was written on does not bode well for ANY bank in any country that indicates savings are protected. Iceland's integrity has nose-dived after this.

As a non-expert in the field of finance one has to make judgements based on what is available, and have a certain level of trust in what is written and explained. To the anti-Iceland posters on this forum I would say it is nice to have the benefit of hindsight, but just leave it at that - there is enough worry in the world and life without your collective carping on....

After all Icesave was allowed to trade in this country by the FSA whos own website mentioned it as a savings option, as did many none-government expert sites including Moneyfacts (gave them an award in 2008!!!), Which, MSE, etc...

Eezageeza

Nick_C wrote: »

But as a taxpayer, I may have to end up bailing out people who have not been so prudent, and that annoys me.

Yes, I can understand that. But it's the same old story. As I wrote above, I could argue that I don't think my tax money should pay for healthcare for people who smoke/play reckless sports/binge drink, amongst other things.

The fact remains that we all live in a society where we benefit from supporting each other.

Nick_C wrote: »

For the record, I considered saving with Icesave and felt it too risky.

Good for you!

Nick_C

Eezageeza wrote: »

I could argue that I don't think my tax money should pay for healthcare for people who smoke/play reckless sports/binge drink, amongst other things.

You could indeed, and to a large extent I could agree with you.

Eezageeza wrote: »

The fact remains that we all live in a society where we benefit from supporting each other.

That's an opinion, not a fact!

nilrem_2

I may have to end up bailing out people who have not been so prudent, and that annoys me.

1) so if you save with XYZ bank who for some reason or other went bust you would be happy to be told hard luck you have lost it?

2) people who keep saying they don't see why they should help pay out for people who have lost out in banks other than their own have not thought through (IMHO) that if the government did not rescue savers then all trust in other banks would diminish causing massive runs and complete collapse of the banking system including the one that they choose to save in that they deemed safe at the time.

Optimist

Nick_C wrote: »

There is absolutely no way that I would have put more than £35K in any bank (or group of banks). The FSCS has been around for nearly 8 years, and I have always been aware of the risk of losing money if a bank went under. But as a taxpayer, I may have to end up bailing out people who have not been so prudent, and that annoys me.

For the record, I considered saving with Icesave and felt it too risky.

Interesting to note that there were more than 20 councils with money in Landsbanki or its subsidiaries and as retail investors they wont be covered by the compensation scheme.

Such a pity you didn't put your financial acumen to work and let them know it was too risky to put money in a bank

surmees

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?

home_alone

TuftyMatt wrote: »

I am also unhappy that those with over 35k in their accounts will get bailed out and claim back the full 100%

Having said that I would rather help out some poor old granny with their life savings over a rich fat cat who cant add up anytime.

Far too many "Tim nice but dim" people in the City for me.

Where do these idiots come from, there are many old grannies with their life savings with icesave, in fact I am a grandpa with his life savings with icesave and I may be a bit overweight but I am not a fat cat they would not be saving with icesave they have other means of making money

gary

Replay

Its good to know we will be getting our money back from ICESAVE (sometime next year) but I expect someone will want to know the exact amount, how do we find that out if we can't access our accounts?

Optimist

Replay wrote: »

Its good to know we will be getting our money back from ICESAVE (sometime next year) but I expect someone will want to know the exact amount, how do we find that out if we can't access our accounts?

You can access your account, you just cant transfer money from it!