April Inflation. CPI 4.5% & RPI 5.2%

DervProf

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You been chucky'd?

"Don't anyone have a go at me, but I'll have a go at who I like, thanks".

Thought you were sick of this? Now you are back to dish out even more than you got?

He can't even say that I kicked it off this time. I haven't dished anything out to RM in the past week or so, then he starts. It wouldn't be so bad if he had any real reason to, or if his comments were true. Apparently, I bought my house 20 years ago, with help from the BOMAD. And that's just for starters. These "facts" are news to me. Oh, and apparently I have been "crowing" about being mortgage free etc.

He did have me on ignore for a while, but it appears that our initial encounter still gets to him. He does remind me of chucky, to a degree. My initial dealings with chucky we rather lively, and I found that chucky was harder to deal with. RM is easy, as he seems to just make stuff up about me which is pure rubbish. It appears he'd like me to have relied on my parents to buy my house, to be sad and lonely, or even to have wished him and others on here misfortune. I have never done that, and he won't find any posts that prove otherwise. I have pointed out a few of the realities of life to him, but he appears to have taken offence to the (reasonable) things that I have suggested.

Anyway, work to do, so let's wait and see what story he comes up with next.

Graham_Devon

DervProf wrote: »

He can't even say that I kicked it off this time. I haven't dished anything out to RM in the past week or so, then he starts. It wouldn't be so bad if he had any real reason to, or if his comments were true. Apparently, I bought my house 20 years ago, with help from the BOMAD. And that's just for starters. These "facts" are news to me. Oh, and apparently I have been "crowing" about being mortgage free etc.

He did have me on ignore for a while, but it appears that our initial encounter still gets to him. He does remind me of chucky, to a degree. My initial dealings with chucky we rather lively, and I found that chucky was harder to deal with. RM is easy, as he seems to just make stuff up about me which is pure rubbish. It appears he'd like me to have relied on my parents to buy my house, to be sad and lonely, or even to have wished him and others on here misfortune. I have never done that, and he won't find any posts that prove otherwise. I have pointed out a few of the realities of life to him, but he appears to have taken offence to the (reasonable) things that I have suggested.

Anyway, work to do, so let's wait and see what story he comes up with next.

Well I'm not sure if I should be calling you "my precious" now.

Would you prefer just "precious"?

lisyloo

Because the returns are slightly less if he spends it maybe.

Sorry, back a bit late but....
Jimmy - there are dozens of investing options beyond high st savings accounts.

If Percy doesn't want to do any short term investing then that's a choice and I'm afraid he would then have to accept the rates on offer.
That's his choice.

However there are definitely other options available.
For example he could put the money in premium bonds and have a chance of being rich.
He might not get a great return but it's an option that some people choose to have a bit of a flutter whilst they are waiting with no risk to capital.
If the period was expected to be more than 12 months then NSI is an option.
Investing in stocks & shares short term is also an option.
I'm not saying I'd recommend that for a depost, but what I am saying is that there are options and if you make a choice then you have to accept the consequences of that choice.

I'm afraid I have little sympathy for those who choose high st savings accounts and then moan about the rates.
I have chosen that option for my elderly in-laws.
Yes the returns are poor but there is no risk and they have access so that's a choice.
I understand some people's options may be more limited than others, but when you make a choice you have to take some responsibility for that.

I know a lot of people will think my opinion is harsh and won't agree, but I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that savers do not have a god given right to inflation proofed returns.
If they want that then they shouild save/invest in the appropraite product.

Percy1983

Now this is a serious question, I am currently earning 3.2% AER on savings.

Now I may need that money back in 6 months, it needs to be somewhere I can add to it monthly and there will be no loss if withdrawn in said 6 months (it could be there 6-14 months).

It has to be absolutey 100% risk free and as mentioned return more than 3.2% AER.

So is there a better option? As I say this is a serious question, you say I have choice but I am currently unaware or a better choice.

My point is a do feel very much the lack of interest on my savings is subsidising those with mortgages, I am not expecting inflation busting savings, but if the interest rate was a little higher my savings could match inflation and those with mortgages will still be in most cases paying a little less than they started, is that such a bad idea?

nicko33

Percy1983 wrote: »

Now this is a serious question, I am currently earning 3.2% AER on savings.

check out the saving and investing forum
e.g.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/608697

e.g. the Santander First Home Saver account (post #8)

even if you can't get all your money into it, if you and your partner had 1 each, getting 5% on some of your money is better than 5% on none of it.

First time i saw this account i thought you could also deposit lump sums (maybe no interest for that month) but not so sure now

Percy1983

nicko33 wrote: »

check out the saving and investing forum
e.g.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/608697

e.g. the Santander First Home Saver account (post #8)

even if you can't get all your money into it, if you and your partner had 1 each, getting 5% on some of your money is better than 5% on none of it.

First time i saw this account i thought you could also deposit lump sums (maybe no interest for that month) but not so sure now

Looks quite good there, I guess I will pay tax so will get around 4% in reality, but it would help.

Thanks

lisyloo

you say I have choice

Not on the criteria you have laid down, I didn't say that.
You have choices that involve risk with capital (e.g. shares) or risk of getting a lower return (e.g. premium bonds)
Basically the age old risk/return trade-off.

My point is a do feel very much the lack of interest on my savings is subsidising those with mortgages

More specifically anyone with debt including businesses (I'm not sure why there appears to be a feeling that the UK economy resolves around consumers). I would agree that's what's happening, clearly the BOE think that's absolutely necessary right now.
Some of that subsidy didn't happen deliberately.
Those of us on really great deals tracking BOE did so by accident from the point of view of the banks. They would not knowingly have put people on such low rates, so it's a c**k up on their part.

but if the interest rate was a little higher my savings could match inflation

You could also gurantee matching inflation if you would tie-it up for 12 months.
I'm not having a go at you, but merely pointing out that the restrictions you are placing on it, reduce your choices.

and those with mortgages will still be in most cases paying a little less than they started, is that such a bad idea?

Morally I don't think it's a terrible idea.
But my bank has a contract with me for 8 years and they can't jsut go and change it willy nilly once they've made an agreement with customers.
Perhaps they shouldn't have made those contracts in the first place, but the fact is they did.

Putting the morals aside.
Would you think it was a bad idea if loads of pepople got repossesed and we went back into recessions and loads of people lost their jobs as a consquence, just so you could get a better return??
It's a genuine question and it's actually a really good one.

Should we do what's morally right and let people suffer from their own actions, even if the knock-on effects affect innocent people.
Or should we do what's best for the country as a whole (and another set of innocent people suffer less so).

hmm..........to be honest I think that's a really tricky one.

chucky

RenovationMan wrote: »

Just giving back to those that dished it out to me. I dont see you holding back with those people who dish it out to you, GD.

Perhaps the problem is that I am dishing it out to one of your 'beloved' bear gang? I'm sure if I were dishing it out to chucky, sibley, mctavish that I wouldnt hear a peep out of you, would I ?

leave Devon alone RM, he's quite bitter and not the brightest. it's not your fault though.

he's managed to screw himself financial when he was a bit younger. he blames everyone else and high house prices for his misfortunes instead of himself. quite sad really.

ps. don't mention me in the same sentence as Sibley or Hamish please :rotfl:

Percy1983

lisyloo wrote: »

Not on the criteria you have laid down, I didn't say that.
You have choices that involve risk with capital (e.g. shares) or risk of getting a lower return (e.g. premium bonds)
Basically the age old risk/return trade-off.



More specifically anyone with debt including businesses (I'm not sure why there appears to be a feeling that the UK economy resolves around consumers). I would agree that's what's happening, clearly the BOE think that's absolutely necessary right now.
Some of that subsidy didn't happen deliberately.
Those of us on really great deals tracking BOE did so by accident from the point of view of the banks. They would not knowingly have put people on such low rates, so it's a c**k up on their part.



You could also gurantee matching inflation if you would tie-it up for 12 months.
I'm not having a go at you, but merely pointing out that the restrictions you are placing on it, reduce your choices.



Morally I don't think it's a terrible idea.
But my bank has a contract with me for 8 years and they can't jsut go and change it willy nilly once they've made an agreement with customers.
Perhaps they shouldn't have made those contracts in the first place, but the fact is they did.

Putting the morals aside.
Would you think it was a bad idea if loads of pepople got repossesed and we went back into recessions and loads of people lost their jobs as a consquence, just so you could get a better return??
It's a genuine question and it's actually a really good one.

Should we do what's morally right and let people suffer from their own actions, even if the knock-on effects affect innocent people.
Or should we do what's best for the country as a whole (and another set of innocent people suffer less so).

hmm..........to be honest I think that's a really tricky one.

They are interesting questions, to which I don't believe in one extreme or the other but more a line which needs moving. Right now its on the extreme of protect home owners whatever the cost (one of those costs being my savings), the other extreme is bump interest rates high at the cost of home owners (but great for my savings and such like).

Now what I want is the line to move away from protecting those with mortgages to move, say an interest rate of around 3-4%, it will help us with savings etc and return those with trackers back to around 'normal' levels they where paying before. Yes this may push some into repossesion, is this morally wrong I don't think so. If I can't afford a house I don't get one, so if somebody else can't afford a house why should they stay in them.

Its like me getting a ferrari on credit and not being able to afford it but keeping it anyway while others who also can't afford a ferrari don't get one.

As I am say I am not for mass repossesions, but those who have overstetched shouldn't be bailed out forever.

lisyloo

say an interest rate of around 3-4%

I believe that would result in recession, large scale job losses, bankruptices and reposessions.

is this morally wrong I don't think so. If I can't afford a house I don't get one, so if somebody else can't afford a house why should they stay in them.

I do agree there should be some "moral hazard" and people should take responsibilites for their decisions (both borrows and variable rate savers alike).
Unforunately there would be a lot of relatively innocent people involved.

Its like me getting a ferrari on credit and not being able to afford it but keeping it anyway while others who also can't afford a ferrari don't get one.

I don't agree that everyone has overborrowed. I certinaly didn't.
Just because I have a great rate doens't mean I'm overindebted in fact I'm not.
Many are in difficulties because they have suffered pay cuts, loss of overtimes, loss of bonuses, possibly loss of one salary.
Yes sure there are some who have overborrowed, but you make it sound like it's all homeowners which I can assure you is not the case.

but those who have overstetched shouldn't be bailed out forever

I agree, but looks at what's happening. First we bailed out the banks, then we bail out whole countries.
I am afraid that however valid your opinions, I don't see your wishes coming true at all.
Sorry.

I'm afraid I don't have any good suggestions unless you fancy a flitter on premium bonds for a small (potential) loss in interest.