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

confused_landlord

steadysaver wrote: »

All savings in Icesave have been guaranteed 100% above and beyond the 50k.

Not sure it is ALL savings. Councils and Businesses dont seem to be getting the same deal.

steadysaver

confused_landlord wrote: »

Not sure it is ALL savings. Councils and Businesses dont seem to be getting the same deal.

Councils and businesses didnt put money into Icesave. Hence why I said all Icesave money was backed. Councils and businesses used business acounts with other Landsbanki businesses

innovate

danny69 wrote: »

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

Think again.

It's pretty safe to assume that the people with personal accounts in Icesave are "other UK taxpayers". They would have been able to put savings aside from money they earned in jobs, for which they paid tax. In addition, they have savings accounts which come with an FSCS guarantee (which has been extended recently in response to the immediate issue).

Your - and my, and everybody else's - tax money has been used to bail out Northern Rock, and the whole UK banking system. Your - and my, and everybody else's - tax money has aslo been, and will be, used for all sorts of other things that you personally may not ever use (NHS, roads, police, hospitals are just some, examples). Oh, and you yourself may be using, or needing at some stage, services that cost far more than the tax you personally will have paid in your entire lifetime.

Unless you become a hermit on a private island, you can't escape that society only functions with a tax support system where some people pay more than they use, and some people use more than they pay.

csiman

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?

You are wrong! Darling categorically stated Icesave savers will be reimbursed in FULL :j

k8r4u

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?

Sorry, I thought all that b*llocks you've been trolling around was based on you having some knowledge of what's going on.

OracleXe

1694 wrote: »

Every bank owner in the world is !!!!ing himself at you, and using your money to mop up the !!!!.

Guranteed....are you an imbecile who guarantees it? The government, where does the governement get its money taxes. Worse yet the government isn't using tax reserves to guarantee it is borrowing AT INTEREST. Didnt you hear the news, every man woman and child has just picked up atleast £8000 of NEW national debt + interest that they will have to repay with taxes. No one has even been told what the interest rate is. What if we cant cover the repayment + interest, the debt widens. How are the babies born today who wont earn for 16 years going to pay off the debt they were born into?

I'm simply addressing the Op's point. According to my calculator -
Op's money now = 200K
Op's mate's money now = 200K + interest

You've gone off on a tangent. Is the Op better off or is his mate better off? Who's got more? What relevance is the fact that the taxpayer is picking up the tab? His mate's 200k is still worth more - is it not? You can quote whatever figures and theories you like, but at the end of the day, the mate is still better off.

nikell

1694: Your understanding of macro-economics is at best basic, your simplistic example does not account for fundamentals of money supply such as reserve ratios let alone the key mechanism of supply and demand. Now close the Wikipedia page.....

danny69: Your theory of keeping your money at home as it is some how less risky, genius! The way you disregard every post that corrects your many incorrect assumptions. Why don't I join the rest who attempted and get some of them out the way too. Icesave was a UK subsiduary of a foreign bank same as Abbey or HSBC are. Understand? No probably not. You say it had no branches, nor do First Direct, Cahoot or Smile, what's your point? It offered interest in the same region as many other UK based banks/building society. Saving deposits are not a high risk investment, one, because they aren't an "investment" they are a "deposit" and secondly the return on them reflects their perceived/inherant market risk, namely its not a great return, 6-7% interest less inflation is 3-4%, that is a very poor return if it were a risky investment. They were covered by a guarantee same as UK based banks or banks that have a UK subsiduary (Remember? Like Abbey and HSBC), so what if it's part covered by a foreign government it's still the same protection, the failure of that mechanism was not the fault of the depositors, but a fault in market operation, governments role is to step in when a market fails, while the Icelandic was unable/unwilling the UK has done that, end of.

greyster

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?

No, all the money is protected, technicallty making it better protection than if I was in a UK bank.

And to top things off, interest is paid up to a few days ago then a lower rate is paid there after. To the point I'm not actually that worse off, if not at all as long as I don't need my money in the next few months - which I don't. Oh oh oh and also I retain my tax free status on all my money, so I can put it all into another ISA when I get it back, over the entitlement of £3600/year.

I'm an educated person and I laugh when someone calls a icesaver stupid. I wonder what profession someone is in who has the ability to call someone they don't know over the internet stupid based on them simply being an icesave customer.

Perhaps while these individuals who are trolling the forums calling people stupid - could phone up the councils who have invested millions in iceland? They're probably more informed than most and yet they fell down the same hole.

I want it to be known I'm not crawling with my head down, I'll be investing in a foreign bank again... earning high interest so please continue your thankless task, calling poople stupid and giving inaccurate information such as only up to £50k.

Aegis

1694 wrote: »

You have that EXACTLY WRONG.

Read this: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1210231&highlight=why+saving

the buying power of money is the ratio of goods and service to money in existence, If you allow banks to multiply your money your buyer power goes down, the piddly interest you recieve blinds you to this.

No, you have it exactly wrong. Here's the maths:

Person A:

Keeps £200k under the bed for 2 years.

End result = £200,000


Person B:

Keeps £200k in a number of accounts averaging 3% after tax for 2 years.

End result = £212,180


That £12k difference says you're wrong, no matter how many times you want to rant on about how banks having your money weakens it. The fact remains that with your money in a bank, you get more money, with your money under the bed you get sweet FA increase either in absolute or real terms. This isn't rocket science, this is GCSE maths in practice.

amistupid

danny69 wrote: »

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

200 grand under the mattress! Too much money one place. He should be protecting his savings by splitting it into £50,000 chunks:
One lot in a shoe box at the bottom of the wardrobe
One lot in a biscuit tin behind the marmalade in the pantry.
One lot stuffed into the china dog on the mantle piece.
And if he insists on keeping one lot under the bed make sure it's not too close to the chamber-pot as that would definitely cause a few wee problems!