Moneysavingexpert campaign to help savers

OptionARMAGEDDON

why shoild the goverment care more about those with cash when there are those without struggling more?

heathcote123

ILW wrote: »

Just seems a little bizarre that the whole world crisis has been caused by governments and individuals over borrowing. Yet when it comes to the crunch, the ones that are paying the price are those that tried to save a few quid and stay out of debt, whilst those that did over borrow are being bailed out with low IRs and high inflation. Does not seem a great example to set for future generations about "doing the right thing".

Welcome to the real world. It's run by politicians and theives.

Arrange your finances accordingly.

hallmark

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

why shoild the goverment care more about those with cash when there are those without struggling more?

Because in the vast majority of cases the people with cash have spent most of their lives working & the people struggling are lazy toe-rags who've never put in the time or made the effort to get skills that would lead to a decent job. They'd rather just whine about how hard done by they are.

This might be an unpalatable truth for lots of people but it's a truth nonetheless. The fact is people who are unemployed & struggling through genuine hardship do exist but in most cases they're just lazy & would rather say it's impossible to get "the job they deserve" so they need to live on benefits instead.

Just like there probably does exist, somewhere, a fat person with a gland problem, but actually most fat people are fat because they are greedy & lazy & would infinitely rather sit on the sofa munching their way through X-factor than go for a jog. Again, lots of people might not like someone saying this but actually in the vast majority of cases it's the simple truth.

Not that I have anything against fat people. It's just the one's who try to claim it's because of some reason other than gluttony & laziness who I can't stand. Likewise I'd have nothing against people without a job if they didn't expect the rest of us to pay their way because they can't be bothered doing something they'd rather not, like accept a crappy job while they work their way towards a better one.

ILW

OptionARMAGEDDON wrote: »

why shoild the goverment care more about those with cash when there are those without struggling more?

The true poor tend not to have much debt and are being hurt by inflation.
Those that are struggling due to just living a lifestyle beyond their means are the ones being bailed out by low IRs and high inflation. I cannot see that is the type of behaviour that should be encouraged and rewarded if we wish to get to a stable economy in the future.

C_Mababejive

Savers really need to get with the project...

Here are a few points to note as i see them

1)That money you gave to the bank/building society to save..? Guess what? They dont have it any more. they loaned it out for 7% and gave you 1%.

2)Dont save too much..tic toc tic toc life is passing you by..

3)Money must be spent as soon as possible after it is earned as otherwise it gets devalued by inflation.

4) Think of a proportion of your wages as a means of raising credit...get some debt.



Now then..i currently have a couple of grand coming to an end on a 0% Card. Can anyone think of the least expensive way of perpetuating this debt and adding to it ? I want to inflate it away..just like HM Government is doing.

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's a bit like asking the question "what are you doing today" and the other person replies "I'm doing DIY"

You don't generally then correct them, and suggest that are wrong...as they could be plumbing, doing carpentry, maybe decorating, or building and press then to tell you exactly what they are doing and quantify it.

Sorry, but I'm going to be pedantic on this one. I know what you're saying, but try going on to the savings and investment board on here and ask if 'saving' and 'investing' are the same and whether people sould consider them the same thing. The answer will be no.

To use your example, if I asked someone what they did with their money and they said "I said save it all", I would then ask where they saved it. If they told me they saved it by investing in a risky corporate bond I don't think it'd be anal to tell them that that isn't saving, it's investing. Two different things. In your example, carpentry, plumbing, decorating etc. are all forms of DIY.

ILW

Where does investing become gambling?

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

Where does investing become gambling?

Well all investing is a gamble to a certain extent, as you're risking your capital. But you can assess the level of risk you want to take. Putting your money on red at the casino, or on a horse, is traditional gambling. You'll double or treble your money, or lose it all. I think some investing is like this - if you put all your money in to a AIM share, for example, that's gambling. All or nothing approach really, as you could be wiped out or double or more your money in 12 months with a lot of AIM shares. Which is fine, if you're comfortable with that and can afford to lose all the money you put in.

If you invest across a range of investments then I don't think it's gambling. There's risk attached, but if you weight your portfolio towards a bedrock of 'safer' investments and diversify across asset classes and countries then you're investing with risk attached, not gambling. My portfolio is set up so that it's very unlikely to gain more than around 20% a year or lose more than 20% a year (although this is being tested this year!). My overall aim is maybe 5% or 6% after tax each year over the long term. I don't think this can be classed as gambling.

Good question for this thread though.

Linton

ILW wrote: »

Where does investing become gambling?

I suggest two indicators:

When your objective in buying is short term gain rather than long term growth or income. The shorter the term the closer it is to gambling.

The chance of loss to your original investment should your prediction prove wrong. The higher the likelihood of a large % loss the closer it is to gambling.

Cleaver

Linton wrote: »

I suggest two indicators:

When your objective in buying is short term gain rather than long term growth or income. The shorter the term the closer it is to gambling.

The chance of loss to your original investment should your prediction prove wrong. The higher the likelihood of a large % loss the closer it is to gambling.

Much more succinct and accurate response than mine.