We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Martin on Radio 5 this morning and the banks
Options
Graham_Devon
Posts: 58,560 Forumite
Martin was on Radio5 this morning. Was about the bank charges case.
Was really interested in his stance on how giving around £10bn back to customers will help the economy. He stated most of it will go back to the banks anyway as people will pay off their debt with it. Or they may buy stuff from shops etc. Would love to see him on this thread, but he's going to be very very busy for the next couple of days!
How far does this line actually go? I couldn't quite help sitting there thinking this isn't quite right Martin as if he was trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes by bringing in the QE analogy.
So would it actually help the economy if the banks paid back £10bn (and lost the court case)?
It may help some people clear their debts (if that's where they put their money) but the bank is hardly winning here as was the line taken this morning, they are simply loosing money either way. (or should I say we are!?). Or, was Martins view maybe that this is what QE should be being used for, as QE is just being held within the banks?
Also, court ruling today on the charges. Would it be good for the economy overall if banks were made to pay back around £10bn?
Was really interested in his stance on how giving around £10bn back to customers will help the economy. He stated most of it will go back to the banks anyway as people will pay off their debt with it. Or they may buy stuff from shops etc. Would love to see him on this thread, but he's going to be very very busy for the next couple of days!
How far does this line actually go? I couldn't quite help sitting there thinking this isn't quite right Martin as if he was trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes by bringing in the QE analogy.
So would it actually help the economy if the banks paid back £10bn (and lost the court case)?
It may help some people clear their debts (if that's where they put their money) but the bank is hardly winning here as was the line taken this morning, they are simply loosing money either way. (or should I say we are!?). Or, was Martins view maybe that this is what QE should be being used for, as QE is just being held within the banks?
Also, court ruling today on the charges. Would it be good for the economy overall if banks were made to pay back around £10bn?
0
Comments
-
I am struggling with this whole debate.
Surely when people sign up for bank accounts,they receive documentation relating to T&Cs and charges levied on accounts?
I know i do/have.
anyway,if those charges are then levied in accordance with the T&Cs,then what is wrong with that? surely there is no claim?
Banks are intimating that if they loose this one,they will start charging everyone.
So effectively,those who incur charges win again whereas those who manage their accounts more effectively, will have to pay the price.
Its always the same...savers and the moneywise are the mugs...debt and profligacy is good.
We are all learning some valuable lessons and i for one,will get myself more debt.Feudal Britain needs land reform. 70% of the land is "owned" by 1 % of the population and at least 50% is unregistered (inherited by landed gentry). Thats why your slave box costs so much..0 -
0
-
YAY!!!!!
:D:D
:money::money::money::money::money::money::money:"I can hear you whisperin', children, so I know you're down there. I can feel myself gettin' awful mad. I'm out of patience, children. I'm coming to find you now." - Harry Powell, Night of the Hunter, 1955.0 -
Excellent news.
Why should the rest of us pay more for banking just because the f e c kless few can't manage their accounts and then complain it's "unfair" despite entering into a contract with the bank that clearly explained what would happen in such an event!!!!!
This type of nonsense campaign just makes me angry. It portrays people as weak feeble idiots and helps governments to justify yet more nanny state mentalism.
There should be LESS regulation and interference from government in society, not more, and these types of campaign only increase the perception that we all need governments and quango's to wipe our bottoms and tell us what to do.
Unfortunately, more time and money will now doubtless be wasted trying to find another loophole.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
There has been talk recently of charging for all hole in the wall withdrawals. It is amazing - even money appears to be becoming a commodity!
I'm kind of on the fence on this one. I think that many charges banks apply are/were overbearing, excessive & were in reality a penalty & way above the actual costs banks incurred. So I do feel that banks did profit in a big way from them.
I think there is a part acknowledgement of this, in that most banks have reduced these charges in the past couple of years.
At the same time, I do feel that the majority, who manage their accounts, don't rack up charges etc, would have lost out if free banking disappeared owing to this.
If free banking went, there would be massive implications I feel, especially seeing as how all benefits are paid direct into bank accounts. It could really adversely affect the most vulnerable.It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
Good.
I have long been against the reclaiming of bank charges in a LOT of cases. Not in all cases as I believe some cases were actually very harsh. But 95% of it came down to spending money people didnt have and using direct debits due to lazyness.
Easiest way to avoid charges is to pay manually instead of direct debit.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Good.
I have long been against the reclaiming of bank charges in a LOT of cases. Not in all cases as I believe some cases were actually very harsh. But 95% of it came down to spending money people didnt have and using direct debits due to lazyness.
Easiest way to avoid charges is to pay manually instead of direct debit.
You might call it lazy but I call it efficient to pay by direct debit, why spend a lot of time writing out cheques and paying for postage or calling 08 telephone numbers every month. I might be wrong but isn't there also some financial benefit in paying some bills by dd.Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
Pip pip....HurraahhhhhhhFeudal Britain needs land reform. 70% of the land is "owned" by 1 % of the population and at least 50% is unregistered (inherited by landed gentry). Thats why your slave box costs so much..0
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »Good.
I have long been against the reclaiming of bank charges in a LOT of cases. Not in all cases as I believe some cases were actually very harsh. But 95% of it came down to spending money people didnt have and using direct debits due to lazyness.
Easiest way to avoid charges is to pay manually instead of direct debit.
Easiest way to avoid charges is to balance your cheque book in the first place. The fault is not with Direct Debits, it lies with the way some people run their accounts. I've used DD's for years without going overdrawn, but then I have always lived within my means."I can hear you whisperin', children, so I know you're down there. I can feel myself gettin' awful mad. I'm out of patience, children. I'm coming to find you now." - Harry Powell, Night of the Hunter, 1955.0 -
lemonjelly wrote: »I think that many charges banks apply are/were overbearing, excessive & were in reality a penalty & way above the actual costs banks incurred. So I do feel that banks did profit in a big way from them.
.
But so what if they did profit?????
Simple concept..... You agreed to the charges when you signed up for the account.
If you don't want to pay them, then manage your money properly.
If you are too stupid to manage your money properly, then don't use direct debits and pay your bills manually.
Nobody put a gun to your head and made you sign up for a current account. Nobody forced you to use direct debits. You have a choice to accept the terms on offer, or make other arrangements.
So stop freaking whining about it when you screw up!!!!!:mad:“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards