On Sky Now... Iceland to refuse to pay UK 2.3 Billion to savers

Mr_Mumble

I applaud the Icelandic people for this decision. It is ludicrous that individuals with no connection with a commercial entity should be asked to stump up for the folly of 'savers' in another country. If you receive a higher interest rate then you take on a higher level of risk.

The FSA are to blame for allowing these institutions to take retail savings in the UK, the British government are then at fault for guaranteeing amounts over £50,000 only one year after this sum was raised and every member of the public should have been aware of the FSCS limits. The Icelandic people are not at fault, they should put two fingers up to foreign authorities who disregard moral hazard and bully.

Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and HSBC went bust. Would the British taxpayer be happy if they were on the hook for hundreds of billions owed to retail savers in the Far East and South America?

Bootski

Really2 wrote: »

Could not most people in every country say the same in the credit crunch.

what's my current debt due to people trading doggy wrapped up debts.

Not my fault but I live in the country that traded them, made money off them and now pay the price.

Living in the country makes you involved unfortunately because directly or indirectly you will have lived on some of the proceeds in the good times.
So perhaps they have had that 10,000 per person already in cheaper taxes and better services and jobs for the last 10 years.
It is naive to think you are never involved because some way, you always are, just like we are all finding out here too.

The bill always arrives some day.

I think you're naive, and / or assuming to think most people would know that's the way it works.

Well assume you moved any funds you risked losing!!

Really2

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

No offence but thats a defeatist attitude.

The money should come from the top down & not a blanket covering.

So who covers the debts/losses on our nationalised banks then?

Could you explain where the deposits went, if no one in iceland benefited where did the deposited money go?

Don't get me wrong, I am happy for all FSCS schemes to be pulled and for borrowers to take responsibility.
But i am fairly sure most of the supporters of iceland would moan if they lost their savings.
Would you be happy to save if 0% of your money was covered?

Really2

Bootski wrote: »

I think you're naive, and / or assuming to think most people would know that's the way it works.

Well assume you moved any funds you risked losing!!

As I said I am happy for savers to foot the bill of failing banks.

If you don't have these silly security schemes you don't have to worry about things like this.

Personally I have no problem holding their assets if they don't pay. It is just a large scale version of debt collecting.

Like I said, i don't see why some are happy to see their govenrment to protect their people but not our government to do the same.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Really2 wrote: »

1) So who covers the debts/losses on our nationalised banks then?

2) Could you explain where the deposits went, if no one in iceland benefited where did the deposited money go?

3) Would you be happy to save if 0% of your money was covered?

1) It shouldnt be me... I should imagine a few Lords should be asked to put their hands in their pockets. The Chairmen & Directors have obviously been negligent & acted illegally. If they havent got the money jail them, it happened to Nick Leeson, they done the same thing..

2) No. I cant sorry. & neither could the majority of Icelanders because they werent responsible for it either

3) Wherever I put money its my risk & if the bank gambles with it unknown to me whoever gambles with it is responsible.

Really2

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

1) It shouldnt be me... I should imagine a few Lords should be asked to put their hands in their pockets. The Chairmen & Directors have obviously been negligent & acted illegally. If they havent got the money jail them, it happened to Nick Leeson, they done the same thing..

2) No. I cant sorry. & neither could the majority of Icelanders because they werent responsible for it either

3) Wherever I put money its my risk & if the bank gambles with it unknown to me whoever gambles with it is responsible.

So jail instead of repay in most cases. does that just not sound like a fraud breeder to you?

The thing is once anything is nationalised the people are then responsible, it was nationalised to save there own peoples saving. But in doing so they took on all the debts.

Sorry I fail to see how they get out on this one, they should have lost their savings initialy instead perhaps.

if not I presume you are OK in the UK government with holding assets to protect our savers..

I am not having a go at anyone but I am really struggling to find any one with a consistent bilateral view on this.

Bootski

Really2 wrote: »

So who covers the debts/losses on our nationalised banks then?

Could you explain where the deposits went, if no one in iceland benefited where did the deposited money go?

I don't understand you! You just said to me "look on it as a donation"

Don't get me wrong, I am happy for all FSCS schemes to be pulled and for borrowers to take responsibility.

Really? what Icelandics or the British Public should take responsibility??


But i am fairly sure most of the supporters of iceland would moan if they lost their savings.
Would you be happy to save if 0% of your money was covered?

Really2

Bootski wrote: »

You look at money your council lost as a donation to iceland (because lending and then not expecting it back is a donation in my eyes)
If you are happy to do that be happy paying higher council tax to cover the loss.

Some one always pays in the end, if this happens it will be you.
Your councils short fall will be recovered by tax if not from iceland.

Personally Ii would be happier if you did not have to pay higher tax because of this but if you are happy so be it.

For every £ lost to iceland we will pay another £ to replace it. Personally in a perfect world I would prefer the people who were lent it to pay it back rather than you or I.

Bootski

Really2 wrote: »

You look at you lost council money as a donation to iceland (because lending and then not expecting it back is a donation in my eyes)
If you are happy to do that be happy paying higher council tax to cover the loss.
I never gave my permission to lend any of my money to anyone, hence I'm not only angry, but ever so slighty perplexed!:mad:

Some one always pays in the end, if this happens it will be you. No - it won't
Your councils short fall will be recovered by tax if not from iceland. I'll just stop recycling then, few can be bothered round here anyway ie those that don't even pay their own rent!!

Personally Ii would be happier if you did not have to pay higher tax because of this but if you are happy so be it.

Personally, I'm not happy about any of it and don't understand why you keep thinking that I would be:eek:

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Really2 wrote: »

So jail instead of repay in most cases. does that just not sound like a fraud breeder to you?.

You have a really warped view on justice..

Cough up & send every penny you earn to HM Treasury for the next 15 years. Just to cover Northern Rock.