Won't it make a run on the banks more likely...

Wookster

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

So what is more important to you? Protecting your savings interest rate a few percent? Or protecting jobs and industry? At the moment we have to choose between one or the other.

This is such a gross oversimplification of the situation we're in.

Cannon_Fodder

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I don't envy other people's savings. You work hard you earn cash you spend and save.

I just happen to think that the effects on your savings interest rate is a little less drastic event to the effect on your life of losing your job and your home. Would be fun to put a wannabe whiner and a newly redundant factory worker in the same room and see if the whiner can persuade the unemployed that their loss of job income and self respect is less of an issue than their savings earning 3% less a year.



So what is more important to you? Protecting your savings interest rate a few percent? Or protecting jobs and industry? At the moment we have to choose between one or the other.

Unlike yourself, this is not just about me. I try to think outside that box.

I have a grandparent who is 90, and parents in their 60s, who have ALL THEIR LIVES strived to be sensible and prudent with money...unlike many others.

Now they face retirement on less than half the income from savings they would have had.

By the time the recession is over, and interest rates move back up, they will have had to dip into their savings, that they can then never replace...

"At the moment we have to choose between one or the other" - that may be a nice ideal to aspire to, but at the moment we are FAILING to do EITHER.

If the "newly redundant factory worker" had not been made so, maybe your argument would hold water. Whilst this policy continues to fail to work, it does not.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Wookster wrote: »

This is such a gross oversimplification of the situation we're in.

Well, interest rates can either go up, or down. One way is good for business bad for savers, the other way is bad for business good for savers.

Reaper

On another thread someone had an idea I liked - instead of saving they were spending money on green improvments to their house - insulation, solar heating etc

That way although they were spendng it would cut their long term energy bills. You have to be careful as the payback on some green technology is marginal, but on the other hand so are savings account rates.

housesitter

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I don't envy other people's savings. You work hard you earn cash you spend and save.

Neither do I get angry when accused of being "tight" by my peers becasue I'm not frittering it away on new crap every month.
A few years down the line however they are amazed to see that I've got such a big deposit for a house and looking several rungs up the ladder.
It's not smugness on my part, just pity for them unable to see the long game.

I just happen to think that the effects on your savings interest rate is a little less drastic event to the effect on your life of losing your job and your home.

Yes. It has less effect on me.

Would be fun to put a wannabe whiner and a newly redundant factory worker in the same room and see if the whiner can persuade the unemployed that their loss of job income and self respect is less of an issue than their savings earning 3% less a year.

Dpending on whom you are referring to as "their":
My savings rate verses their job, I don't honestly care about them.
Their savings rate verses their job, it's a dumb arguement to have with them.

So what is more important to you? Protecting your savings interest rate a few percent? Or protecting jobs and industry? At the moment we have to choose between one or the other.

It's more important to me that I have a high savings rate. I'm not responsible for keeping people in jobs and I don't see why I should suffer to support them.
Sorry, I thought this was a capitalist country not a communist one?
Yes you may think it's a selfish viewpoint, but I draw a parallel with Aesop's Fable - The Squirrel and the Grasshopper.

You can see the original and the UK reality version here if you haven't previously.
It may "amuse" you:
http://wow.zerogravitas.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1530

drc

The problem is that this government has been teaching one thing but doing the exact opposite. I don't know about others but I have been brought up with the ethos that saving is the best way to go, not to acrue debts, not to rely on benefits, take responsibility financially and be prudent etc etc. It is now quite clear that government and society nowadays does not respect prudence or responsible behaviour and penalises those that have saved, those that do things the 'correct', legal way. So there is no longer any insentive to save when having savings means you are denied many things that many irresponsible people automatically receive. I think that Gordon Brown et al are just confirming in the minds of the younger generation that there is no point in saving, having a pension, being responsible as it will get you nowhere and in fact, you will probably be penalised for it. Likewise, it is no wonder that there are so many uninsured drivers out there as their 'fine' if caught, has on many occasions been considerably lower than insurance premiums. So crime and irresponsiblity pays...

JFC_2

Ok so what about this scenario...

A boss tells his manager he has to lose 200 hours a month. He expected him to make at least one person redundant. The manager says, dont worry I can sort this without anyone losing their job.

what did he do?

He asked everyone to shorten their working day by 30 mins. Ok..so they lose 2.5 hours a week in money, but they also know that it could have been their job on the line.

I thought the solution was a wonderful idea

(this is actualy a true story told to me by a Union Official, she was amazed at what a wonderful group of employees they were)

Sorry this is a bit off topic, but what I was trying to say is that sometimes there are less drastic solutions to a problem than all or nothing.

Savers need somewhere to increase their interest, but not so high it impacts on those unable to save due to unemployment etc.

JFC_2

by the way...who is Cyril?

Cannon_Fodder

http://rochdalelibdems.org.uk/photos/2.html

pickles110564

Chris2685 wrote: »

... if interest rates are lowered anymore?

I personally would move all my savings out if interest rates do hit zero...

Where will you put your 50p? Under the bed.
You are talking a load of rubbish, just imagine if someone broke into your house and nicked your life savings, how would you feel then? Pretty stupid I guess just like you must feel now when reading your original post.