If Darling saves our Icesave money - my family will all vote for Labour!

margaretclare

ballyblack wrote: »

It was the Labour government that allowed these Icelandic Viking raiders to get into the country and steal our savings

No, they did not. It's called the 'global market-place'. No one forced you to put your savings in a foreign bank, no one twisted your arm up your back. You did it in the hope of getting a higher interest rate.

I have no time for the present Government, but do get your facts right.

echelon101

NeilW wrote: »

It has everything to do with the Labour government. They have singularly failed to deal with 'economic externalities'

Please define "economic externalities".

Was it the government's responsibility to:

1. React to the sub-prime US market crisis, that happened months and months before the current crisis

2. To do an audit of ALL the investment and normal banks within the UK

3. To actively advise people not to deposit money in Icelandic banks

Also surely you meant to critique by saying they are pretending to operate "a socialist system but really are operating a capitalist system", because after all they are meant to be a left wing political party.

The world is governed by capitalism due to human nature. The pursuit of profit is one's main aim. As Dostoevsky said in Notes of the Underground "If man had all things he desired then he would contrive to lose it all to gain an advantage" (sic)

This has nothing to do with raising taxes etc

noh

edwinac wrote: »

Well if you must, I can use the word "consol".. Does that soothe your delicate English sensibilities, "Nigel" ?

Point to those websites, please. I thought not! You really are a fraud! Every word was my own, as you know.

...............

Consol is accurate.
So are you an American ?
Many of your arguements and conspiracy theories are taken from here:-

http://www.larouchepub.com/

I'll ask you a straight question or two.
Are you an American?
Are you resident in the UK?
Are you a follower of LaRouche?
What is your motive for posting the theories expressed by the LaRouche movement on a UK bulletein board dedicated to helping UK consumers save money?

Nigel

northern5

noh wrote: »

Consol is accurate.
So are you an American ?
Many of your arguements and conspiracy theories are taken from here:-

http://www.larouchepub.com/

I'll ask you a straight question or two.
Are you an American?
Are you resident in the UK?
Are you a follower of LaRouche?
What is your motive for posting the theories expressed by the LaRouche movement on a UK bulletein board dedicated to helping UK consumers save money?

Nigel

Now now ... calm down!

mohthom

I'd just like to offer a quick correction to the title of this thread - as I believe it is totally misguided.

Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown aren't likely to save the money of IceSavers.

They are going to withdraw money from the FSCS 'fund' to pay for it. It's robbing Peter (me) to pay Paul (those who deposited with IceSave) as a result of their bank going under. I personally have no problem with the c.£30,000 that was guaranteed by the FSCS, but I do not appreciate picking up the tab for the first c.£20,000 the Icelandic scheme has, as far as I understand, refused to pay to date. I also do not appreciate paying anything above £50,000 as this was never guaranteed under the FSCS and any losses above this amount are a result of pure, 100% financial mismanagement and risk-taking. My sympathies are with the charities who have lost money (Cats Protection League, Christie Hospital etc. etc.), and would far rather see this money refunded to its charity depositors than the monies above £50,000 for private depositors. I still fail to understand why lack of planning on the part of these private depositors (depositing more than £50,000 - especially when done for preferential rates of interest) has resulted in an emergency (resulting in my future financial loss at no fault of my own) on my part.

MohThoM

itsmickdundee

Dealmad wrote: »

Why are they giving people above £35,000 back when they knew the risk , everyone knew if you put more then £35,000 in then you wouldnt be covered for the whole lot!!!!

Im sure Icesave was b!!!!!ed before it then went from £35,000 to £50,000 , but hey what the hell give the rich their money back and raise our taxes , well done .

Im all for people getting the money back , yes under £35,000 but getting more just annoys me , if people want to take risk then thats upto them , but why should everyone else pay for others mistakes

As usually it will be the poor who surfer

I cant stand labour , just have to look at the state of the country to see how bad they are.

What a stupid lame reason to vote labour :rolleyes:

Probably when im old ...ill retire else where as thats how much i can no longer stand a far left wing country.

You really are being very narrow minded.

Why single out those who saved with Icesave? What about Northern Rock, B&B, RBS, HBOS, etc etc?

Or is that different in some way? What about the entire banking system? Because tax payer money is being used to prop up ALL of it.

If people had invested in shares or investment funds or other high risk investments, yes they should lose their money as their is an intrinsic risk.

If you deposit money into a bank - like what people did with Icesave - and what is the safest of all financial products, you don't expect the bank to steal your money. In which case, savers DO deserve to be compensated EVERY penny.

Further, the government has FROZEN around £4billion worth of Icelandic assets. These will be used to pay everyone back. Otherwise I can assure you that some loan (or mortgage, if you like) facility will be set up with the Icelandic government meaning they will pay back every penny, with interest, until everyone is compensated. This might take 50 years, but at least everyone is compensated. So the tax payer, in the long term, is not losing a SINGLE penny.

Finally, let's take a closer look at what you are saying. So you are basically saying it is unfair for tax payer money to bail out sums higher than £50k? And I agree, it is unfair.

But it's a catch 22. A fair few people in this country - and practically every business - has a lot more than 50k in the bank. If amounts above that disappears, then what? It's called anarchy. Civil war. The end of society. Everything would go bankrupt, including the country. Oh, and remember we need to import energy, food, etc...

How will that affect the poor? Well I'll tell you, I think the poor would be a damn site less affected by bailing out - along with all taxpayers - the entire banking system. There is no alternative.

Don't castigate those who have worked hard and saved hard - it makes you sound like some jealous loser. "Im sure Icesave was b!!!!!ed before it then went from £35,000 to £50,000 , but hey what the hell give the rich their money back and raise our taxes , well done."

It is these very people who have nothing to do with the current situation, while it is probably people like yourself - who have everything on needless credit - which HAS caused this problem. Or should we rename this economic problem the Hypocrite Crunch?

So if you don't like it, or don't like wealth or think it is wrong for people to work hard and save hard, then I have one last thing to say:

Go to North Korea. They enjoy an incredible standard of living, where all wealth is spread equally.

Jesus christ... Where's the eye-rolling emoticon?

noh

northern5 wrote: »

Now now ... calm down!

Whats not calm about my post?
Just some straight questions.

mohthom

itsmickdundee wrote: »

Why single out those who saved with Icesave? What about Northern Rock, B&B, RBS, HBOS, etc etc?

Northern Rock and B&B were nationalised - they didn't go bust. They were also UK owned, whereas IceSave was run by a different country and protected (partially) by a different scheme.

itsmickdundee wrote: »

But it's a catch 22. A fair few people in this country - and practically every business - has a lot more than 50k in the bank. If amounts above that disappears, then what? It's called anarchy. Civil war. The end of society.

It's not a Catch 22 at all - there's two finite possibilities that do not lead to a feedback loop.

I know no-one who has more than £50k in deposits who has it entirely in one bank. Spreading the deposits lessens the risk. Obviously this isn't possible 100% for balances of above a couple of million pounds. Generally, concerning the multi-millionaires I've known and met, they invest the money they have in buying businesses and stock. Rarely do the multi-millionaires I've known and met just keep it all in a single bank account. Additionally, the number of depositors who would lose out above this £50k per bank threshold is miniscule - I think you'd find the resentment from the majority of society toward the people who've amassed these 'great fortunes' while they struggle from pay packet to pay packet would be rather large, and there would be little sympathy for their plight. Minorities do not make anarchies - particularly if they don't have the money to hire armies!

itsmickdundee wrote: »

How will that affect the poor? Well I'll tell you, I think the poor would be a damn site less affected by bailing out - along with all taxpayers - the entire banking system. There is no alternative.

The UK populace is already one of the most taxed on earth - I don't think that bailing out imprudent savers with more than £50k in a single bank account is going to affect the majority of the populace - particularly as even small increases in taxation can spell such huge differences in the lives of those who live on minimum wage.

MohThoM

itsmickdundee

mohthom wrote: »

Northern Rock and B&B were nationalised - they didn't go bust. They were also UK owned, whereas IceSave was run by a different country and protected (partially) by a different scheme.

It still affects UK GDP. If 300,000 people lose a few billion pounds worth of money, it would affect everyone. Icesave HAD to be bailed out. And what a silly comment. If NR and B&B were not about to go bust, why were they nationalised? Because the government was being a big bad bully and wanted a few banks to play with? Their liabilities = considerably more than their capital. Their cashflow was f***ed. In the business world, that means they have gone BUST. They were nationalised as the government footed the bill for all liabilities. This also meant the money which every depositor had LOST was guaranteed by the government. Hope you've learnt something.

mohthom wrote: »

It's not a Catch 22 at all - there's two finite possibilities that do not lead to a feedback loop.

I know no-one who has more than £50k in deposits who has it entirely in one bank. Spreading the deposits lessens the risk.

I was focusing more on businesses and these would have more than £50k in a bank account and if they were to lose that money, it would bankrupt the entire country. Hence, it cannot be allowed to happen to any bank which is under the rules of the FSA and the banking code.

mohthom wrote: »

The UK populace is already one of the most taxed on earth - I don't think that bailing out imprudent savers with more than £50k in a single bank account is going to affect the majority of the populace - particularly as even small increases in taxation can spell such huge differences in the lives of those who live on minimum wage.

Wake up. It would. These savers might not be able to pay builders, taxes, insurance, loans, mortgages, pensions - and remember there is £5 billion here. That's large enough to make a dent in the UK's economy. So then what? It would still lead to economic problems affecting the entire country and thus still raise taxes. And please, stop calling them "imprudent savers". The same thing happend to Northern Rock and B&B. Did you moan about them paying back balances above £50k?

The only difference here is that Icesave couldn't be nationalised. Otherwise the specifics are exactly the same - all savers are refunded 100% of their money. Or did people lose money when NR and B&B hit the dirt?

If you open an ISA or a savings account or a deposit account, you do so knowing there is hardly any risk. These are exceptional times and it now has made ALL bank accounts risky, so again don't use such provocative language as "imprudent". If everyone had started pulling money out of Icelandic banks months ago, they would have still gone bust, meaning a lot of people - and money - would still be in limbo. The situation started as soon as Icelandic banks landed on our doorstep and I didn't hear you say anything back then, now that you are clearly some kind of an expert on the subject.

As mentioned, the Icelandic government most likely will pay back all monies that are owing. But to single out Icelandic savers is ridiculous. The only difference is that it is more obvious as to how these people are getting their money back. Otherwise, it is exactly the same situation to our UK banks which folded.

So stop making an argument about nothing, unless you'd like to extend your argument to every single irresponsible bank registered in this country which the UK taxpayer has been forced to bail out.

And as I mentioned, there is no other alternative, unless your 30 years of economics experience would like to enlighten...

mohthom

itsmickdundee wrote: »

I was focusing more on businesses and these would have more than £50k in a bank account and if they were to lose that money, it would bankrupt the entire country. Hence, it cannot be allowed to happen to any bank which is under the rules of the FSA and the banking code.

If this were the case then EVERY bank operating in the UK would have an unconditional 100% savings guarantee. Long and short of it - they don't, it's £50,000

itsmickdundee wrote: »

It would. And please, stop calling them "imprudent savers". The same thing happend to Northern Rock and B&B. Did you moan about them paying back balances above £50k?

I believe the term imprudent to be wholly usable in this situation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the meaning is 'incautious.' If I were cautious I would have spread my risk. If I were looking for a large gain I would have gone with the highest rate-paying account. This is not a cautious method, particularly when contravening consensus advice in that any monies over £50,000 are not protected. I would refer to this kind of action as imprudent, incautious and unsafe. I wouldn't say it was reckless (which is what I think you think I mean), but it certainly isn't cautious.

Northern Rock and B&B are British banks. The first £35,000 was guaranteed for each of these banks (as they were both nationalised before 07/10/08 the guarantee was £15k less). They didn't 'pay back' balances above this - they made the deposits of savers available to them in the normal manner. Does your bank 'pay you back' every time you go to the cash machine?

itsmickdundee wrote: »

If you open an ISA or a savings account or a deposit account, you do so knowing there is hardly any risk. These are exceptional times and it now has made ALL bank accounts risky.

Agreed. As long as you stick within the £50,000 per account-holder per financial institution limit there is NO risk. I would see it as exceptionally risky to ignore the common advice of not having more than the guaranteed £50,000 in a single institution - even in unexceptional times.

itsmickdundee wrote: »

As mentioned, the Icelandic government most likely will pay back all monies that are owing. But to single out Icelandic savers is ridiculous. The only difference is that it is more obvious as to how these people are getting their money back.Otherwise, it is exactly the same situation to our UK banks which folded.

I'm not singling out Icelandic savers - I'm singling out IceSavers. There's a huge difference - that being that Icelandic savers aren't having any problems whereas British IceSavers are - because they're NOT Icelandic savers! Additionally, it's always been made clear that IceSave is not a British bank and does not follow the same rules as British banks (and presumably this is one of the reasons they were able to offer such fabulous rates of interest). I will have the same manner if any other non-UK based banking subsiduary go bust, or any other bank in which savers' money is protected in a different way to the FSA scheme.

itsmickdundee wrote: »

So stop making an argument about nothing, unless you'd like to extend your argument to every single irresponsible bank registered in this country which the UK taxpayer has been forced to bail out.

I hardly call this an argument about nothing! The fact that I have 30 years of economic experience to look forward to (!) means that I've something to worry about, but I think it's a weak argument that chronological experience (you say 30 years . . . ) should make up for logic and reasoning - experience isn't simply having been there before, it's knowing how to cope with what's ahead. The majority of my problems with the OP and other responses in this thread has been one of terminology - in the same way that there's no such thing as 'Interest free,' Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown aren't 'Saving' the money of IceSave depositors, they're redistributing my money (and YOUR money!) to pay them. The only winners are IceSavers who didn't follow the rules/guidelines. The losers are everyone else.

MohThoM