Prudence - Why bother?

baby_boomer

The Times captured my thoughts exactly.

Times Business Comment

"......the bailout of Icesave depositors is morally hazardous in the extreme. People who put money into an Icelandic internet bank offering high rates knew, or should have known, that it was a bit risky. They would certainly have known if they had read the warning by my colleague Patrick Hosking in July. By promising unlimited compensation to Icesave depositors, possibly at the expense of other more cautious savers, the Government is telling us we don't need to be careful about where we put our money in future. So we won't...."

Elsewhere in the paper a saver with £180K at IceSave expressed relief. Up to Friday he only had £35K protection even if the Icelandic government's word was its bond. [The bloke may have money but he is a financial idiot. He thinks that the money must be somewhere and the someone, somewhere is sitting on his tidy pile.]

Yet he may now be compensated out of the taxes of the Farepak savers who struggled to fund a family Christmas and lost their money even though they weren't getting interest!

amcluesent

In the same way, look at the immigrant mother of seven(!) living in benefits in a £1.2MILLION house, all courtesy of muggins the taxpayer.

FACT After 10 years of Labour, why or why haven't we clocked that working and savings is for fools.

baby_boomer

Can we please stick to saving / banking on this thread? Council obligations and the workings of the benefit system are probably better on DT.

mrkbrrws

I think there was a legitimate expectation that anything up to £35,000 would be protected, but I do agree that those with more than £50,000 (as the current limit) have been somewhat lucky.

I would hope that no-one thinks that because people were lucky this time that they have no responsibility to keep their money safe, and hopefully people will be careful and deposit no more than £50,000 per institution.

pumpndump

baby_boomer wrote: »

Can we please stick to saving / banking on this thread? Council obligations and the workings of the benefit system are probably better on DT.

We are. How can we save and invest if we are being choked with tax to pay for a load of degenerates?

mobfant

mrkbrrws wrote: »

I think there was a legitimate expectation that anything up to £35,000 would be protected, but I do agree that those with more than £50,000 (as the current limit) have been somewhat lucky.

Fully agree. Those who had more than £50,000 shouldn't have got it back. Expecting Iceland to compensate us was not, in my opinion, unreasonable but those, like me, who had less than the limit but still had money in there, shouldn't complain if we lose interim interest or have to wait up to the expected period (3 months?) to get it back.

1echidna

pumpndump wrote: »

We are. How can we save and invest if we are being choked with tax to pay for a load of degenerates?

Do I detect the sharp aspergic whit of the city trader in your posts?

Pssst

I think the Times article is a little unfair. The fact is that Icesave,although an icelandic business, had offices in the UK and were registered to trade in the UK.. I therefore believe that the UK and Icelandic authorities have an obligation both moral and legal to provide recompense up to the 50k limit.

As others have said,i thinhk the 100% compo that is being promised leaves those with over 50k very lucky !

Fact is that the interest rates were not astronomically higher. From the way some people talk,you'd think they were offering 10%. Also the products were widely promoted and recommended in the finanical media for quite some time.

I do not expect the Icelandic Government and icesave to act honorably. They are thieves,liars and cheats. I do howver expect to be recompensed. Thankfully i do not have over £50k.

The UK Government will have to recompense and get whatever it can from the Icelandic Government. The reason-? If any such compensation scheme so much as falters then all trust will be lost and there will be anarchy as they all rush to pull out cash that isnt there!

I have faith in Mr Darling and so expect repayment soon. If however they had made the decision to slash and burn and forget us, i would simply have taken out a personal loan on a UK bank, pulled the cash out and defaulted.

One thing i have learned from this debacle-Only mugs save. I will not do it again.

FairyElephant_2

mobfant wrote: »

Fully agree. Those who had more than £50,000 shouldn't have got it back. Expecting Iceland to compensate us was not, in my opinion, unreasonable but those, like me, who had less than the limit but still had money in there, shouldn't complain if we lose interim interest or have to wait up to the expected period (3 months?) to get it back.

Thank you for phrasing it so well - these are exactly my thoughts!

I am extremely pleased that 'small' savers will be compensated, but am left with the feeling that there is somehow some 'bending of the rules' going on, and in the end someone is (or lots of 'someones' are) going to have to pay for others' mistakes.....

meester

baby_boomer wrote: »

Can we please stick to saving / banking on this thread? Council obligations and the workings of the benefit system are probably better on DT.

Isn't the whole thread better off on DT? The thread is about whether the government should bailout Icesave, i.e. politics, i.e. DT.

It's not about whether they will (there's dozens of threads on that already).

Isn't there enough noise on here already????

Milarky

pumpndump wrote: »

We are. How can we save and invest if we are being choked with tax to pay for a load of degenerates?

What's with this 'degenerates' abuse? the Daily Mail probably never used the 'n' word either, but they rallied a mob tendency it seems. [From 1980. How times haven't changed...]

You can't go around mouthing off at the least members of society in general like that without considering the consequences:

a) I, and people like me, will upbrade you, Sir, for doing so!

b) If your DM fantasy was realised and all immigrants were got rid of - including second and third generation 'immigrants' - do you really think the UK would become a sunlit upland or a deserted property estate?

I'm all for non-pc remarks - as they have a grain of truth about them often and being pc comes at the price of allowing some real howlers to go past but, please, raise the level of abuse a notch would you?

Ta