We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. 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!
Interest rates so low - don't bother saving!
Comments
-
You could go back further to when the pounds was worth less, at least in USD terms. We have also gone from less than parity with the Euro a few years ago to touching 1.3 Euros a few months ago. Right now the pound looks stable, if commodity prices take off again because of China the stability of the pound will be irrelevant to commodity prices.
Right now its 1.22 Euros to the pound.
Vested Interests keep trying to tell us the Euro is in a dire state and how lucky we are to have the Pound instead of the Euro. But if we had joined the Euro when it was introduced at 1.4 our money would already be worth 15% more. And we wouldn't have to keep paying the bankers every time we need to change our money backwards and forwards.
They must take us for idiots.“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »George, I am a pensioner and most of my savings are in cash.
But I can still see that to expect those without money to pay a real income to those who have it is morally indefensible. The fact that you can't defend it is shown by the fact that you can only reply with abuse.
For net interest rates to match the real rate of inflation is all we can realistically ask for. And it is something the country needs so as to encourage people to save for their retirement, and, above all, to restore and maintain confidence in the currency. Because once people lose confidence in the currency, its game over for the economy.
It was abusive only because I took it to be an insult to the intelligence. The comments savoured of the brain-dead Marxist claptrap that nobody should benefit from privately owned capital. Zero or negative real rates actually disincentivise saving for retirement, or for anything else. And low interest rates tend to have a devaluing effect on a currency, so I don't see where that argument's coming from either.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
The Euro is a mess with all its bailouts and failed rules. You must include the cost of Greece and others in your 15%
We would do better but we are more tied to dollar trade which also is weak
More oil is produced then ever before but not in UK would be part of itGlen_Clark wrote: »Commodity values in general are not rising.
Its the value of the pound that is falling.
You are off base, capital can be used anywhere they like.But I can still see that to expect those without money to pay a real income to those who have it is morally indefensible.
It represents saved labour, its perfectly defensible for savers demand fair exchange or go else wheregadgetmind wrote: »Rather than raising interest rates, they can simply start to unwind the QE and take the surplus cash out of the economy that way.
Simply unwind QE
We own a third of all the debt, who are we going to easily sell all of that to, at a much lower price maybe 0 -
A friend has first hand experience of working in an MPs office and deraling with visitors. She told me most of them were complaining pensioners, better off than she is, who do nothing but complain about how badly off they are. She feels that if she could totally impoverish the young to living off bread and water, so as to give these pensioners another £1,000 a year, they would just say its no more than we deserve, and still not be satisfied however much they got. Your comments here show me exactly what she means. When I quoted facts that disprove what you say, and prove those over 65 get a better deal on tax and benefits, you can only reply with abuse.GeorgeHowell wrote: »-- and politicians see political capital in appeasing the young at the expense of the older,“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »A friend has first hand experience of working in an MPs office and deraling with visitors. She told me most of them were complaining pensioners, better off than she is, who do nothing but complain about how badly off they are. She feels that if she could totally impoverish the young to living off bread and water, so as to give these pensioners another £1,000 a year, they would just say its no more than we deserve, and still not be satisfied however much they got. Your comments here show me exactly what she means. When I quoted facts that disprove what you say, and prove those over 65 get a better deal on tax and benefits, you can only reply with abuse.
That's just anecdotal and second hand -- proves nothing. Pensioners get the state pension that they've paid in for. It isn't great compared with other countries. Older pensioners get some tax breaks but they are going to be taken away. The free bus passes, winter fuel allowances, and TV licenses are not exactly worth a fortune. Conversely older people do not draw any child benefit for the most part. Maybe some selfish older people would see younger people suffer more hardship so they can have an extra week in Benidorm in February, but that certainly isn't most older people. As we see on this forum there are plenty of younger people who would see older people banished to granny flats so they can have the latest iPad every time it comes out and stag weeks in Barcelona at the drop of a hat. It cuts both ways and there are selfish hypocritical people of all generations.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
So now its gone from abuse to setting up a straw man.GeorgeHowell wrote: »It was abusive only because I took it to be an insult to the intelligence. The comments savoured of the brain-dead Marxist claptrap that nobody should benefit from privately owned capital. Zero or negative real rates actually disincentivise saving for retirement, or for anything else. And low interest rates tend to have a devaluing effect on a currency, so I don't see where that argument's coming from either.
Where did I say that ' nobody should benefit from privately owned capital'
or that we should have 'negative real rates'
I just think that its unrealistic and unhelpful to demand positive real rates where there is no risk. Groups like 'Save Our Savers' would get a lot more support by focusing on inflation, rather than interest rates“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
sabretoothtigger wrote: »Simply unwind QE We own a third of all the debt, who are we going to easily sell all of that to, at a much lower price maybe
Indeed. Imagine trying to sell that £375 billion back to the market on top of all the other bonds we need to sell to finance Trident. The losses will dwarf even Gordon Brown's Gold Selling Spree.
Sir Mervyn has certainly left a poisoned chalice to his successor. But at least we are paying him well for taking it on.“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
but then why would QE need to be reversed? the more obvious response to any sign of domestic inflation would be to stop any further QE (if it hadn't already been stopped) and put interest rates up by 0.5% or 1%.0
-
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Older pensioners get some tax breaks but they are going to be taken away.
It isn't just older pensioners. All those 65 and over pay less tax on the same income even though they don't have expenses like travel to work they get free bus passes. Winter fuel allowances, TV licenses, Free Prescriptions are not exactly worth a fortune - but they are all things those under 65 don't get, yet you are trying to say older people are worse off than the young??
True the State Pension is not worth a fortune, But its more state Benefits than those of working age get - thats the point here.
Now you really are clutching at straws in an effort to claim older people are worse off. Older people would get child benefit if they had children to support. But they don't.GeorgeHowell wrote: »Conversely older people do not draw any child benefit for the most part.“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »It isn't just older pensioners. All those 65 and over pay less tax on the same income even though they don't have expenses like travel to work they get free bus passes. Winter fuel allowances, TV licenses, Free Prescriptions are not exactly worth a fortune - but they are all things those under 65 don't get, yet you are trying to say older people are worse off than the young??
Now you really are clutching at straws in an effort to claim older people are worse off. Older people would get child benefit if they had children to support. But they don't.
Higher tax allowance removed in the 2012 budget.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards