Last year I put 200k under my matress and my mate put 200k in Icesave.....

greyster

danny69 wrote: »

I told him, long term, I would have a lot more money than him. Eggs, baskets........

and now that guy has a !!!! load more money than you. So what's your point.

danny69

StevieJ, the problem is that the UK taxpayer will be having to payout for the foolishness of savers in this bank. It has been known for a number of years now that the Icelandic banks werent as secure as British ones. The savers followed the high interest rates without looking at the risk which, in my opinion, makes it unfair for the UK taxpayer to pay out for their mistake. If any saver with Icesave tries to tell me they werent aware of the risks, or that they were no higher risk than UK banks, you are having a laugh.

confused_landlord

danny69 wrote: »

StevieJ, the problem is that the UK taxpayer will be having to payout for the foolishness of savers in this bank. It has been known for a number of years now that the Icelandic banks werent as secure as British ones. The savers followed the high interest rates without looking at the risk which, in my opinion, makes it unfair for the UK taxpayer to pay out for their mistake. If any saver with Icesave tries to tell me they werent aware of the risks, or that they were no higher risk than UK banks, you are having a laugh.

Is it not true that the UK govt has seized assets worth 4 billion to pay for this? I understand that UK savers had about 5 billion worth of savings (and this probably includes councils and businesses). In addition Brown is talking about legal action to recoup any monies due. I think the tax payer is not paying as such, more like bridging a gap until the funds become available. Dont forget the FSA accepts responsibility for funds between 16k to 50k anyway.

danny69

greyster wrote: »

and now that guy has a !!!! load more money than you. So what's your point.

Only the first 50k in Icesave will be paid out. If the UK taxpayer is going to pay out every penny, I will not be best pleased, is this true?

Seajays

1694 wrote: »

Yes the system magics into existence loads of new money which creates a short term boom, but not enough money is created to repay the interest on the loans. Bust.

So you get ahead now, only to fall behind again later.

You could just lend your money to businesses direct yourself and charge them interest if you wanted to. Of course you wouldn't be able to spend it whilst they had it. But then the money would retain its value.

The whole magicking into existence of money is what makes the world go around. The total 'money' (ie something that can settle a debt) in existence continually increases under the current system (as 1694 points out). For those interested see:

Fractional Reserve Banking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

Money Supply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

1694

confused_landlord wrote: »

Is it not true that the UK govt has seized assets worth 4 billion to pay for this? I understand that UK savers had about 5 billion worth of savings (and this probably includes councils and businesses). In addition Brown is talking about legal action to recoup any monies due. I think the tax payer is not paying as such, more like bridging a gap until the funds become available. Dont forget the FSA accepts responsibility for funds between 16k to 50k anyway.

In the mean time, loans are being taken out by the govt to fill in cash flow. The interest on those loans is phenominal, the tax payer will have to pay it.

MrExample

danny69 wrote: »

£192,000? Also, I cannot believe claims that Iceland was such a safe place compared to the UK. I mean, our Government has ensured our money is safe all along, so whyh keep it in a foreign country? Further to somebody saying we were made aware of their financial plight 2 years ago, I would like to add that around 3 years ago they stgruggled to get investment from their usual sources (due to instability) and so offered UK savers higher rates to attract money. As I said before- hook, line, and sinker.

£192,000 in last year's money.

By the way, Icesave was a UK subsidiary of Landsbanki. It wasn't "in" Iceland as such. Furthermore, there were legal guarantees in place, that were supposed to be a strong as the FSCS. Even though Iceland was meant to cough up behind the scenes, the guarantee was provided by the UK.

As someone else said, the rates weren't that much higher than what high-street banks were offering -- but high enough to help against inflation. Most people saw Icesave as a streamlined business with a simple Unique Selling Point, hence the low rates.

Would councils have invested their money their if they thought it was a risk? I think not.

confused_landlord

danny69 wrote: »

Only the first 50k in Icesave will be paid out. If the UK taxpayer is going to pay out every penny, I will not be best pleased, is this true?

Apparantly the Govt will ensure ALL money, even above 50k is reimbursed. I too don't think this was necessary for the Govt to do, but I think any anger should be directed at the Govt for its incompetence and not at the Icesave account holders, most of whom had resigned themselves to losing money. It's not as though they lobbyed for the Govt to pay up or anything.

steadysaver

danny69 wrote: »

Only the first 50k in Icesave will be paid out. If the UK taxpayer is going to pay out every penny, I will not be best pleased, is this true?

All savings in Icesave have been guaranteed 100% above and beyond the 50k. However it has not been said the UK tax payer will payout.

As confused landlord has said, the UK government has seized icelandic assets to pay for this, and they are also taking legal action against the icelandic government. Even if it was the case that the tax payer was to pay out it would still only be 2% of the cash made available to recapitalise the banks this week

danny69

I just dont think that I (or any other UK taxpayer) should have to pay towards this.