Forcing Savers to spend!

leveller2911

hoggums wrote: »

If that happened and I was earning a negative return I would simply take the cash out of the bank and store it in a safe location. I certainly wouldn't be going out to spend it - because the run on the banks would probably mean a total financial collapse that even the government wouldn't be able to rescue.

Theres nothing "logical" about that step at all. It's just barking.

That'll be made law then...nothing they do is logical,rational or just...:rolleyes:

Sapphire

LesU wrote: »

From the way this thread is flowing, it is almost like this has been reported as an internal Labour leak. It isn't. It is Anatole Kaletsky, writing in The Times and doing his usual thing of trying to be controversial.
His articles are full of this sort of contentious stuff. I think he does it just to wind people up. Of course it also means that people remember his articles. Don't worry, this isn't even remotely on the horizon. Of course you can never rule it out. You can prepare for any eventuality.
Me, I prefer to prepare for the £1,000 handout that every tax payer may get next year to kickstart the economy.

Ah, Antonle Kaletsky again. That explains it. The man is a complete idiot. It's the second time (that I know of) he has riled savers. Jealousy on his part because he doesn't have any savings, only BTL or share investments perhaps? Shame on The Times for allowing such rubbish to be published in their paper.

Incidentally, if the 'government' did ever try such a tactic, my money would be rapidly withdrawn from the banks. I've already paid tax on my savings – no way would I be prepared to allow them to be eroded even more than they are being eroded already.