So much for the credit crunch

hallmark

Brown has given so much of our money to the banks that they clearly don't need any in the form of savings - as evidenced by the heinously low ISA rates available.

A true triple-whammy for anyone who "did the right thing" & lived within their means / saved.

First rig the inflation figures by removing housing & most of those things that go up by double-digit amounts each year. Anything, just so long as the "headline" figure is about 2-3%. Then bail out the banks at taxpayers expense. Finally pressure the banks to keep lending in a desparate attempt to re-ignite the housing bubble. But don't put one iota of pressure on them to offer savers anything remotely approaching an amount that will protect the value of their life savings.


I know this is off-topic for this board but today's the first time I've looked at what's available for (ISA) savers in a long while & I'm freshly aghast at just how much Brown has screwed them over.

koopa_coffee

The base rate is 0.5%. Do you honestly expect to see savings rates of around 5-6%??

LeeSouthEast

Base rate has little connection to the borrowing interest, so is there any real reason for it to have a valid connection to savings figures?

RayWolfe

What a load of tosh. You would be better off writing a letter to the Daily Mail than exposing your spleen here.

OneADay

RayWolfe wrote: »

What a load of tosh. You would be better off writing a letter to the Daily Mail than exposing your spleen here.

Nice argument - you used the words "Daily Mail".

hallmark

RayWolfe wrote: »

What a load of tosh. You would be better off writing a letter to the Daily Mail than exposing your spleen here.

Is it really the limit of your intelligence to accuse anyone with views different to your own of being a Daily Mail reader?

How sad for you, sincere commiserations.

Hungerdunger

hallmark wrote: »

Brown has given so much of our money to the banks

He hasn't given it; he has bailed them out and taken partial ownership. At some point in the future our "shares" will be sold and the taxpayer will recover a large proportion of our investment. Would you have preferred them to go to the wall and for many savers to lose all their money?

hallmark wrote: »

First rig the inflation figures by removing housing & most of those things that go up by double-digit amounts each year.

What are the things he has removed apart from housing costs?As far as I am aware the CPI accounts for inflation excluding housing costs, while the RPI covers inflation including housing costs. If I'm wrong please put me right.

hallmark wrote: »

Finally pressure the banks to keep lending in a desparate attempt to re-ignite the housing bubble. But don't put one iota of pressure on them to offer savers anything remotely approaching an amount that will protect the value of their life savings.

They are being encouraged to keep lending to businesses as well. Would you prefer it if this didn't happen and the banks made it even more difficult for some businesses to keep going through the current difficult circumstances. And while we certainly don't need a new housing bubble, surely you'd agree that the housing market must be kept at least "ticking over". Complete stagnation would have bad knock-on effects for the economy.

I'm afraid things really aren't as simple as you'd like them to be.

RayWolfe

Hungerdunger wrote: »

I'm afraid things really aren't as simple as you'd like them to be.

Now there's a sad waste of your time. I don't think Mr Hallmark is interested in a logical rebuttle, he just wants to hit out. Maybe he's had a bad day or possibly he just gets instructions directly from Central Office.
He'll probably start on immigrants and benefit claimants next.

bigheadxx

So much for the Credit Crunch?

So much for this thread.

opinions4u

hallmark wrote: »

Brown has given so much of our money to the banks that they clearly don't need any in the form of savings - as evidenced by the heinously low ISA rates available.

He has taken equity stakes in two major banks and two small players.

He is, presumably, still funding the gap left by wholesale funds with renewable loans to the banks.

While you could argue that these renewable loans mean that banks don't need to pay higher rates to attract our savings, you need to be realistic. If bank A upped their savings rates, and all bank B customers moved their savings, then bank B would need a bailout. If both bank A and B increase their savings rates together, their losses grow. So they would also need a bailout.

A significant increase in interest rates would not significantly increase the amount of savings in banks and building societies. It simply moves the same money around the system chasing the best rate.

Do you have a solution to this, or are you seriously suggesting the banks should deliberately trade at a loss, going out of their way to take even more money from taxpayers?

A true triple-whammy for anyone who "did the right thing" & lived within their means / saved.

I think you'll find there's a history of Labour governments making a mess of things. Come to think of it, the other lot don't seem to have a strong track record either.

Then bail out the banks at taxpayers expense.

Please clarify what the alternatives were, and what the outcomes would have been had they been chosen.

Finally pressure the banks to keep lending in a desparate attempt to re-ignite the housing bubble. But don't put one iota of pressure on them to offer savers anything remotely approaching an amount that will protect the value of their life savings.

While I will willingly slate the Government and the banks for their economic recklessness prior to the recession, the concept of encouraging people to save their cash at a time the economy needs it to be circulating is a strange one for you to suggest. Encouraging people to be as economically active as their circumstances allow is a sensible policy for the circumstances.

Screwing pension schemes, uncontrolled public expenditure and reckless tax takes from an uncontrolled housing market were always the politics of madness though. Brown's economic miracle gave us a longer run of apparent stability but one hell of a bust at the end of it.

I know this is off-topic for this board but today's the first time I've looked at what's available for (ISA) savers in a long while & I'm freshly aghast at just how much Brown has screwed them over.

If you want to hedge against inflation in a tax-free way, use Index-Linked Savings Certificates.

When base rates were 5.5%, a 2 year fixed ISA was around 6%.

Now that base rates are 0.5% a 2 year fixed is is around 3.5%. A much bigger differential in favour of the saver.

You can moan all you like. Rates are low because the Government of the day doesn't want you to save, they want you to spend. That will change in time, but for now you have to like it, lump it, or emigrate.

hallmark

RayWolfe wrote: »

Now there's a sad waste of your time. I don't think Mr Hallmark is interested in a logical rebuttle, he just wants to hit out. Maybe he's had a bad day or possibly he just gets instructions directly from Central Office.
He'll probably start on immigrants and benefit claimants next.

Sad chap. Are you that tough in person?