Free handouts for the wealthy.

fernandes

I don't know what it is about the credit crunch that's done this to people but this forum has been hugely antagonistic and patronising in the last few days full of people gloating and advocating others misfortune rather than a traditional spirit of advice and help on which these forums were built.

Before the 'bail out' there was someone on the 'Facts Only' thread on Tuesday reveling in portraying Icesavers as Daily Mail reading xenophobes who took a hypocritical calculated foreign risk as rate tarts. In this thread we're 'fat cats' who risked investing money overseas and don't deserve help.

Furthermore it has become fashionable to blame the owner of this site for his recommendation, as if to continue the theme that people who deposited with IceSave were greedy and irresponsible and simply took Martin's rate advice and did not consider the risks of this overseas venture.

Starting at 4am yesterday to go to London for an 11 hour working day I swore I wouldn't rise to it all, but as evidence of this thread is that some people are continuing to use the forums to spin vindictive claims about Icesavers, I'm going to say it: ALL of this is deeply offensive and inaccurate.

Let's get some things straight.

If you're not saving money under your bed and are placing it in a financial institution then the rate of interest offered and the recommendation of others are going to be drivers in your decision. This is the basis of a responsible decision, not a greedy one, and Icesave passed both tests.

Icesave was presented not only by itself, but by mainstream media and in its FSA registration, as a UK savings product.
It wasn't just Martin or 'Daily Mail readers', this was quoted in many newspapers as a leading product. I didn't just rely on Martin, I trusted the advocacy of many sources.

Furthermore, whilst the Icelandic link is not lost on anyone to suggest we were placing savings offshore or deliberately investing overseas to maximise returns is ridiculous, the implication would be no more true than if you used Abbey and were willfully transferring funds away to Spain.

I (and I assume all other Icesavers) did not send ANY money overseas. We transferred it to a UK bank account with a UK sort & account number via a UK clearing system (BACS) and then paid tax directly from the account on interest earned. That is UK savings at the point of deposit and interest paid.

What happens to the money after that is not a reflection of me gambling in investing overseas any more than it might be with multi-nationals like Barclays or HSBC moving your money to all parts of the globe in their investments and in their operations. Icesave was no less a UK savings product.

Of course I am grateful and relieved that the government is going to protect us but incensed at the negative remarks of others here about us 'speculating' in Iceland and not being worthy of support. Somehow some people cannot accept it was an honest, not greedy, selection of UK saving product.

I am not wealthy (young and hard-working and responsible enough to start saving when those my age traditionally run up credit card debt) and I was responsible enough to read all small-print at a time when Icesave's FAQ was ambiguous enough to imply total regulation/coverage by FSA/FCSC.

So when I saved here I did so on valid recommendation (the Times newspaper, not just Martin, for the record) and I did so in the expectation of a savings product no more or less risky than any other available in the UK and regulated by the FSA. I was not greedily shipping my money overseas.

We then earned NET interest (i.e. the government directly earned revenue from this savings product existing IN the UK) so it is right and proper that they have a responsibility to those who generated tax revenues with this investment if funds placed into a UK regulated bank disappear.

Finally the freezing of so many UK assets of Icesave's parent bank underlines that this WAS operating in the UK. If I had wired my money to Iceland, paid no tax, I might understand some of the spiteful remarks on here, as it is I wish some of you pathetic vultures would get off Icesavers cases.

[Deleted User]

op is jealous of people who can save

1echidna

Fella wrote: »

I think you'll find the vast majority of Icesavers are not wealthy or anything like it.

I don't mean to be offensive but compared to those living on state benefits, which was this discussion was about as I understand it, they will be, in general, very wealthy indeed.

opinions4u

Let's ignore those with less than £50k invested.

Imagine, you've spent years nursing your mother who dies, leaving you her mortgage free house worth £300,000.

At last, you have the burden of care removed and the chance to buy a better property for you and your family.

You chase rate and invest the proceeds from the sale of Mum's house - you've seen good things written about an Icelandic Bank on a couple of websites and they are, after all, licensed to take deposits by a government appointed regulator. It's safe - and much better than stocks and shares which are risky.

You have just exchanged contracts on a lovely new house you are buying. Completion is next week.

The bank your £300k is with has collapsed. You are going to lose over 83% of your inheritance and be liable for huge costs for pulling out of your housing transaction.

As the government authorised this deposit taker, the government shares the responsibility to protect those savers who chose it.

I am fortunate enough to have read the right paper at the right time to avoid the Icelandic banks.

I feel unbelievably sorry for those who didn't. £1 or £1m saved it doesn't matter. It's a horrible situation.

iamesbo

kittie wrote: »

op is jealous of people who can save

That is factually inaccurate on both counts.
What I am saying is that it is quite common for people to castigate people who are out of work, throught lack of jobs in the area or sickness, you know, "spongers living off the state" and all that.

Those people are infact recieving their rightful entitlement through the national insurance scheme to which they have paid contributions, or would do if they could get work, so it is not right to call it a 'handout'. The people being bailed out by the government have paid no such contributions so what they are getting truely is a handout. Yet you don't see headlines in the press such as "Mr X receives £300,000 hand out from the state do you? Perhaps because it was the newspaper editor who recieved it!!

And of course there is all those wealth bankers being kept in a job in which they
managed to lose somethiing like half of the countries GDP, or more, the figures are mindblowing.

Plus the money is also going to used in an attempt to prop up a massive property bubble, how wise is that?

The chances of that working are zero in my opinion.

Double standards is what I am talking about.

1echidna

The amateur investor may have found the decision not to deposit with Icesave incredibly difficult to justify when it was offering market leading rates. Indeed it appears that local authorities with professional treasury departments were depositing large amounts with no safety net at all in the form of compensation schemes! True there were indications the thing was turning sour in the last week or so but many, like me had funds tied up in term deposits.

iamesbo

opinions4u wrote: »

Let's ignore those with less than £50k invested.

Imagine, you've spent years nursing your mother who dies, leaving you her mortgage free house worth £300,000.

At last, you have the burden of care removed and the chance to buy a better property for you and your family.

You chase rate and invest the proceeds from the sale of Mum's house - you've seen good things written about an Icelandic Bank on a couple of websites and they are, after all, licensed to take deposits by a government appointed regulator. It's safe - and much better than stocks and shares which are risky.

You have just exchanged contracts on a lovely new house you are buying. Completion is next week.

The bank your £300k is with has collapsed. You are going to lose over 83% of your inheritance and be liable for huge costs for pulling out of your housing transaction.

As the government authorised this deposit taker, the government shares the responsibility to protect those savers who chose it.

I am fortunate enough to have read the right paper at the right time to avoid the Icelandic banks.

I feel unbelievably sorry for those who didn't. £1 or £1m saved it doesn't matter. It's a horrible situation.

That would be a pretty rare situation though. The people with Farepak never recieved a penny from the government when they lost all their Xmas saving, no sympathy from the government their.

Indeed how ironic is it that chairman of the bank which watlzed off which with the
Xmas presents of many poor children is now having himself and his greedy bank bailed out by the government?

I am all for being fair and benevolent, by why is that not extended to the least well off people. A bit odd that isnt it?

They can find £200 *billion* for the bankers but could not find £40 million of childrens Xmas presents. The ratio of those figures will not compute on my calcualtor, it is rounded down to zero!!

If you compare the two cases they are almost identical in the misfortune suffered, yet they recieved nothing but delays and excuses (they are still 'looking into the matter' apparently, under a convienient new blackout.)

Why did they get nothing?

Well people so poor they have to save for Xmas don't really count do they?

They don't exist, give the campaign leader a job and forget about it!!

Do I sound jealous?

1echidna

iamesbo wrote: »

That would be a pretty rare situation though. The people with Farepak never recieved a penny from the government when they lost all their Xmas saving, no sympathy from the government their.

Indeed how ironic is it that chairman of the bank which watlzed off which with the
Xmas presents of many poor children is now having himself and his greedy bank bailed out by the government?

I am all for being fair and benevolent, by why is that not extended to the least well off people. A bit odd that isnt it?

They can find £200 *billion* for the bankers but could not find £40 million of childrens Xmas presents. The ratio of those figures will not compute on my calcualtor, it is rounded down to zero!!

If you compare the two cases they are almost identical in the misfortune suffered, yet they recieved nothing but delays and excuses (they are still 'looking into the matter' apparently, under a convienient new blackout.)

Why did they get nothing?

Well people so poor they have to save for Xmas don't really count do they?

They don't exist, give the campaign leader a job and forget about it!!

Do I sound jealous?

Whilst I sympathise with a lot of the sentiment it would do those living on state benefits no good if the earning potential of the country was damaged and there became many more unemployed to compound the problem. Trust in the banking system is vital and if panic develops immense damage can be done.

iamesbo

1echidna wrote: »

The amateur investor may have found the decision not to deposit with Icesave incredibly difficult to justify when it was offering market leading rates. Indeed it appears that local authorities with professional treasury departments were depositing large amounts with no safety net at all in the form of compensation schemes! True there were indications the thing was turning sour in the last week or so but many, like me had funds tied up in term deposits.

Well you know what local authorities are like, anyway, it's not their money, they can just whack up the council tax - problem solved :O)

After all that tax hits the poorest hardest, so no assistance need there, not on your life, good excuse to whack it up actually?

Usual 10% increase + a bit more?

iamesbo

1echidna wrote: »

Whilst I sympathise with a lot of the sentiment it would do those living on state benefits no good if the earning potential of the country was damaged and there became many more unemployed to compound the problem. Trust in the banking system is vital and if panic develops immense damage can be done.

What earning potential?

They have lost more than they earned.