Free handouts for the wealthy.

1echidna

iamesbo wrote: »

What earning potential?

They have lost more than they earned.

I was talking about the earnings potential of financial services and all those who depend in the conduct of their work on those services, from hospitals to the local plumber, or indeed the unemployed who want to draw their money from their bank.

tonyhamm

Treasury chief Alistair Darling said the British government would also guarantee all customer deposits at Icesave, even if they were above Britain's standard 50,000 pound ($88,000) protection plan because Iceland was refusing to meet its guarantees.
"The Icelandic government, believe it or not, have told me yesterday they have no intention of honoring their obligations here," Darling told the British Broadcasting Corp.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJdb2RwrEg_X8yNRHcVvn_OE9vKwD93MAN000

Humper

We, at least MY money's safe.

So, you know,,,Every cloud... [ / David Brent voice ]

markbloke

iamesbo wrote: »

I wonder if in future, when people are whinging about people living on handouts, will they include savers with Icelandic banks in that group?

They probably will. The sort of people who whinge about people living on handouts are whingers and will whinge about anything. Unless you make the mistake of reading the wrong newspaper's letters page you can entirely ignore such people.

DigitalJedi

markbloke wrote: »

They probably will. The sort of people who whinge about people living on handouts are whingers and will whinge about anything. Unless you make the mistake of reading the wrong newspaper's letters page you can entirely ignore such people.

I have no problems with handouts to those who are in genuine need. After all that is what good society do, we look after each other. Be it unemployment, illness, security.


Also, lets get one thing clear. Do you think the government bailed us savers out because they are jolly nice people? Think they woke up that morning and thought "This can be my good deed for the day."?

No, they did it as part of a range of measures to stop the economy imploding. They see it as a necessary step to stop a massive recession which will result in lots of people losing their jobs and ending up on the very benefits that the troll's on here whinge about.

The fundamental problem with the current crisis is all down to confidence. No-one has confidence. The last thing you need right now is people wondering if their savings are safe or not. That's why Darling has waived the £50k limit.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is not a case of the rich pouring money into an offshore get rich quick scheme and getting burned. The vast majority are joe average public who saved hard, worked hard and thought they were putting their money in a safe bank as guaranteed by the UK government and Icelandic government. This is a bank which was recommended not only by MSE but many other respectable journals. We weren't selling short, buying stocks & shares, spinning a roulette wheel. We had deposited money into a bank's savings account.

Would my attitude be different if the shoe were on the other foot? No. As I said at the beginning, a decent society helps those in need. I've other savings in a maxi ISA and I knew the risks there. I am not looking for anyone to make up the loss there!

nicko33

v6g wrote: »

I repeat my challenge from this post - to anyone who can look up IceSave on the FSA Register (and it's still registered at the time of this posting) and find an explanation of "EEA Authorised" on the FSA register website.

start at
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/hb-releases/rel61/rel61glossary.pdf
under EEA Authorisation

and you'll eventually get to
the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (EEA Passport Rights) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/2511).

fernandes

iamesbo wrote: »

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.

So (and I'm re-quoting verbatim here) 'those people' (on benefits) are receiving their rightful entitlement through a scheme 'to which they have paid contributions, or would do if they could get work' (an acknowledgement that they perhaps haven't) yet Icesavers (to whom I assume you refer) 'have paid no such contributions so what they are getting is truely [sic] a handout'.

Well a) there's a good chance someone in a position to save is also in a position to work and earn, and is therefore paying in all probability a far larger contribution to the national insurance scheme, which makes your point truly inane, particularly as you even caveat that the people who are entitled, may not actually contribute.

But b) giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are perhaps making an asinine point that no such scheme exists to 'bail out' savers then you spectacularly miss the point that outside of ISA's, every saver is paying taxes to the treasury on interest earned, i.e. there is a tax on not spending which goes into the public purse.

Whether or not total revenues from tax on savings interest across all banks is enough to cover the bail out of savers on failed banks is neither here not there, the point is that savers make specific additional contributions to the treasury besides every other and to claim we have made 'no such contributions' is laughable and wrong.

The government are not stupid, the people they're bailing out are the people who via taxes have a very positive balance of contribution to the state, for whom being left to stew would be tantamount to betrayal of social justice. That's different to saying they are wealthy. Being a net contributor simply means responsible and hard working.

Finally to bury the notion that this is a hand out, the FSA and compensation schemes exist to keep UK banks and finance in good order. Don't think it doesn't work both ways. If banks were less regulated the government could not expect their support in other matters and there'd be less confidence in British finance, at cost to the state.

On the whole I think you've imagined in your head you've had some amazing social point to make but written down it makes little sense and I go along with the other poster who has concluded you have been jealous of other peoples prudence and are revelling in the opportunity to pick apart their quite innocent and unfortunate failure.

Which makes you a pretty sad and unfulfilled individual, with a fairly perverse grasp of logic or politics (judging by your moronic statement, as quoted above).

1echidna

fernandes wrote: »

So (and I'm re-quoting verbatim here) 'those people' (on benefits) are receiving their rightful entitlement through a scheme 'to which they have paid contributions, or would do if they could get work' (an acknowledgement that they perhaps haven't) yet Icesavers (to whom I assume you refer) 'have paid no such contributions so what they are getting is truely [sic] a handout'.

Well a) there's a good chance someone in a position to save is also in a position to work and earn, and is therefore paying in all probability a far larger contribution to the national insurance scheme, which makes your point truly inane, particularly as you even caveat that the people who are entitled, may not actually contribute.

But b) giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are perhaps making an asinine point that no such scheme exists to 'bail out' savers then you spectacularly miss the point that outside of ISA's, every saver is paying taxes to the treasury on interest earned, i.e. there is a tax on not spending which goes into the public purse.

Whether or not total revenues from tax on savings interest across all banks is enough to cover the bail out of savers on failed banks is neither here not there, the point is that savers make specific additional contributions to the treasury besides every other and to claim we have made 'no such contributions' is laughable and wrong.

The government are not stupid, the people they're bailing out are the people who via taxes have a very positive balance of contribution to the state, for whom being left to stew would be tantamount to betrayal of social justice. That's different to saying they are wealthy. Being a net contributor simply means responsible and hard working.

Finally to bury the notion that this is a hand out, the FSA and compensation schemes exist to keep UK banks and finance in good order. Don't think it doesn't work both ways. If banks were less regulated the government could not expect their support in other matters and there'd be less confidence in British finance, at cost to the state.

On the whole I think you've imagined in your head you've had some amazing social point to make but written down it makes little sense and I go along with the other poster who has concluded you have been jealous of other peoples prudence and are revelling in the opportunity to pick apart their quite innocent and unfortunate failure.

Which makes you a pretty sad and unfulfilled individual, with a fairly perverse grasp of logic or politics (judging by your moronic statement, as quoted above).

Is this type of personal abuse really necessary? He has made some good points and to be frank your rant seems much more confused to me.

shindigger

iamesbo wrote: »

I wonder if in future, when people are whinging about people living on handouts, will they include savers with Icelandic banks in that group?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4910126.ece


4th paragraph down. There is Icelandic money to pay back the savers.
Take up any losses with your council.
Now, shut up.

derbyjon

I like iamesbo. He's funny. Can we keep him as a pet?