Case study request: savers upset about the 1.5% rate cut

SGE1

tonyg wrote: »

Yes I am upset !

Like many "youngish people" I am disgusted by the governments attempt to continue to prop up the housing market. The government has encouraged artificial and meteoric rises in house prices for years and years. After all it creates an artificial feeling of prosperity and "Mr Average" votes for the government. Of course eventually the housing market will inevitably collapse like a pack of cards.

At the moment house prices have fallen just marginally compared to their rises. Can any average young person get on the housing market. Of course not. The housing market needs to fall by a good 50% before young Mr Average can get back to a more sensible "3 times income mortgage."

Unless the housing market falls to this level we young people haven't got a hope in hell. And nor has the banking system. For the last 20 years house owners have continually benefited at the expense of non-house owners. We NEED a MAJOR, MAJOR price realignemnet of the housing market. Of course it will be painful in the short-term but it is TOTALLY NECESSARY in the long-term. An interest rate cut merely adds insult to injury to those youngsters saving up for a deposit.

Shame on you Mr Brown.

I am one of your "youngsters", and am indeed "saving up for a deposit", but disagree with you.

Please don't feel like you can talk on behalf of an entire generation, because I think many people have very different views on the subject.

The problem with the housing market has had very little to do with cheap credit, and very much to do with easy credit. Banks and banks alone are responsible for their risk strategies, this has nothing to do with the Government.

Borrowing has not been cheap for people, it has merely been made available to people who couldn't afford it. Cue the natural supply and demand effect. As demand for housing rises, so do house prices. The Government does not control house prices, or the availability of credit, unlike you seem to suggest! If anything, fairly high interest rates over the last 2 years, set by the Bank of England (which is independent, so doesn't reflect Government policy) has been trying to reign in consumer spending, to curb inflation.

tonyg_2

SGE1 wrote: »

I am one of your "youngsters", and am indeed "saving up for a deposit", but disagree with you.

Please don't feel like you can talk on behalf of an entire generation, because I think many people have very different views on the subject.

The problem with the housing market has had very little to do with cheap credit, and very much to do with easy credit. Banks and banks alone are responsible for their risk strategies, this has nothing to do with the Government.

Borrowing has not been cheap for people, it has merely been made available to people who couldn't afford it. Cue the natural supply and demand effect. As demand for housing rises, so do house prices. The Government does not control house prices, or the availability of credit, unlike you seem to suggest! If anything, fairly high interest rates over the last 2 years, set by the Bank of England (which is independent, so doesn't reflect Government policy) has been trying to reign in consumer spending, to curb inflation.

I take your point about easy credit! And I do not claim to talk for a generation of youngsters, just "many" of them! Demand for housing HAS been highly influenced by governments of all persuasions for many years, especially since the late 70s. Govermnet has highly encouraged housing demand. Compare the UK with most of the continent!!!!

Agent_C

Lokolo wrote: »

As am I. However with larges amounts of money you will not need access to all of it.

For instance, I had £3000. I will need £1700 in the next 4 months. So I put £1300 of it into a 3 months 7% with Halifax.

There are 3 month, 6 month, 9 months + accounts, people could easily have split money up via this method.

I have split some of my money up in this way, but I still have to leave a fair amount in easy access accounts. We are told that we should have easy access savings equivalent to 3-4 months salary - so if you have no salary like me, then that equates to enough money to survive for say 6 months, until a bond matures, plus 3-4 months on top of that. Plus, as someone who was stung by Icesave, I want to leave most of my cash in accounts where I can get at it easily!

LongTermLurker

ScarletBea wrote: »

I still don't understand where this extra money to spend is coming from, if we're getting much less from our savings.
It certainly won't drive me to get loans, and the people getting loans are the ones that were going to get them in the first place!

The theory is that you will pay less mortgage, and spend the difference because it's now "free cash". If you don't have a mortgage, then it doesn't work for you, but as someone else said, a hell of a lot of people have savings and a mortgage (and in answer to another person who said "so you are just borrowing your own money", it would be a foolish person who put all their spare cash into their property, leaving themselves with no emergency funds or diversification). Unfortunately, you can't set a policy that works for everyone, so the sensible thing is to try and set a policy that works for the majority. I'm not saying it's the right decision, but I'm not about to criticise it before giving it a chance to see if it works.

Originally Posted by LongTermLurker
Most of them hadn't been seen before.

And this invalidates their opinions, how?

Not at all - I joined because I saw a post that was clearly and utterly wrong, and felt compelled to respond. I don't have a problem with people voicing their opinions, so long as they're considered ones and made politely, but I do have a problem with scare-mongers who cause the collapse of one bank because they have read rumours posted in newspapers by hacks who want to make a headline. What was wrong with Kaupthing Edge apart from the fact that their parent company shared the same nationality as another bank that ran into difficulties? Nothing as far as I could see. Just my considered opinion, of course.

JayTee99_2

LongTermLurker wrote: »

Not at all - I joined because I saw a post that was clearly and utterly wrong, and felt compelled to respond. I don't have a problem with people voicing their opinions, so long as they're considered ones and made politely,

Really?? so what was clearly and utterly wrong, and impolite about that post??
[fully reproduced below]

it seemed unfair to me to write off the reporter before he had even written the story, which, if you read some of the other posts in this thread, is EXACTLY what some people have already done!

LongTermLurker wrote: »

Originally Posted by JayTee99

No, that really isn't fair,
there have been some (extremely) irate people on here voicing their opinion over the last 24 hours,

this is their opportunity to make their case to a wider audience!

not that i, personally, have very strong feelings either way, just surprised by the size of the cut.

There have been some really irate people on here voicing their opinions since the first problems with Icesave and shouting from the rooftops that Martin was the spawn of Satan. Most of them hadn't been seen before but they helped to instill fear into Kaupthing Edge customers and those of other banks.

I agree with comments that reporters can be the scourge of the earth and just want a paper-selling scoop - or Roger may be a genuine guy that wants to demonstrate how the reduction is not in the best interest of the people at large.

I think everyone's surprised at the 1.5% cut, but it could be argued that a sharp shock to drive people into spending may get manufacturers producing, shops stocking and transport companies delivering again.

StevieJ

MSE_Natasha wrote: »

Hiya all,

Roger at the Sunday Times would like to speak to anyone who's predominately a saver and is upset about yesterday's 1.5% base rate cut because they won't benefit and will probably end up losing out.

If you feel you fit the bill and are happy to talk to him, please make contact on 0207 782 5673 or email [EMAIL="roger.waite@sunday-times.co.uk"]roger.waite@sunday-times.co.uk[/EMAIL] asap.

Thanks,

Natasha

What about savers who are not upset, he is writing a balanced article is he?

JayTee99_2

i think tbh you're missing the point here Stevie,

there are quite a number of unhappy people on here voicing their opinion against the rate cut, and for all i know, their circumstances are badly affected, but this is a REAL opportunity for those people, instead of just moaning about it to us, to actually DO something.

i'm not saying this reporter is going to be entirely sympathetic to their cases, but if they don't actually make some effort to present their case to the wider public, and here is a reporter apparently ready to listen, then they really only have themselves to blame.

it's entirely possible there could be even further rate cuts to follow..

LongTermLurker

JayTee99 wrote: »

Really?? so what was clearly and utterly wrong, and impolite about that post??
[fully reproduced below]

JayTee - I joined in May, and can't remember the post that I said was wrong - but that poster had answered a question and the answer was incorrect. I wasn't saying your post was wrong or impolite - I wasn't referring to you or any of your posts at all. Sorry if you got the wrong impression or took offense.

I was referring to a number of trolls who appeared and have disappeared very quickly.

However, you told people off for expressing their adverse opinions about reporters; I think reporters have a tendency to report stories that sell, re the Mail's decimation of Jonathan Ross etc - whether you like what was said on the radio or not, it doesn't deserve a witch hunt (sorry for taking this off topic, it's just my example of tabloid journalism).

JayTee99_2

LongTermLurker wrote: »

I wasn't saying your post was wrong or impolite - I wasn't referring to you or any of your posts at all. Sorry if you got the wrong impression or took offense.

oops, i read your post, understanding it as joining this thread, referring to the first post you responded to..

Misunderstanding on my part... Apologies

i have absolutely NO problem with people disagreeing with me, i certainly don't have any monopoly on 'right', and do respect the opinion of others..

Sorry again for the misunderstanding

bristolleedsfan

Suzey wrote: »

What was that about then - I missed that!

Suze

Sunday Times have been private messaging posters asking for their views on different savings topics, those messages appeared to start following the announcement that Nationwide were taking over Derbyshire and Cheshire BS, it appears that The Times have now done a with :money: and now have :money: seal of approval to seek posters comments.

How about The Times make those of us who are interested a discounted prepaid subscription offer of its Monday-Sunday paper editions @1.00 a week like it used to do when it was battling hard against The Telegraph. :think: