Santander rate dropped, where now ?

FreddieFrugal

innovate wrote: »

It is one of the best only, not the best, if you just look at interest rates. There's a 4 and a 5% one! and plenty of 'straight' 3% ones.

I stand corrected:

Best rate if you've used your allocation up in the others and have a larger amount to save.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Not everyone who has cash to stash wants multiple current accounts and also the nause of cycling money between providers to pick up a few quid here and there or have to "play a system" to get a return on their money.

I pay nothing by Direct Debit so would get no "cashback" on a Santander 123 account. And I am not alone in being a selection of oldies who still like to write a cheque to pay a bill.

Not chooising to pay by DD is my choice though but why should I be forced to do something I am not happy with for a few extra quid.

It's high time banks were forced into providing savings accounts with a rate equal to the 123 account without the current account bit and relegating current accounts for their true purpose. For day to day cash management.

ColdIron

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

why should I be forced to do something I am not happy with for a few extra quid.

Who's forcing you to do something you're not happy with?

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

It's high time banks were forced into providing savings accounts with a rate equal to the 123 account

I couldn't disagree more, this sounds very socialist

JohnRo

What else would you expect from bankers?

The more complex and convoluted they make the accounts, the more time and effort is required to jump through all the hoops and extract the most benefit. The whole purpose is to make any worthwhile saving an almighty faff which for the banks simply means more people who increasingly can't be bothered constantly scrambling for a half decent rate and relent, who can then be exploited, leaving what I suspect is the majority of savers with negative real returns in basic cash savings products.

I don't have any strong views about what banks should be forced to do with their retail products but it's obvious why they're going down this road.

eskbanker

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I pay nothing by Direct Debit so would get no "cashback" on a Santander 123 account. And I am not alone in being a selection of oldies who still like to write a cheque to pay a bill.

Not chooising to pay by DD is my choice though but why should I be forced to do something I am not happy with for a few extra quid.

I have heard that argument before (that cheque payers are unfairly penalised), but unsurprisingly many look at it the other way round - it's cheaper and more efficient for companies to receive payments by direct debit so if I'm happy as a customer to pay bills that way then why shouldn't I expect the supplier to share some of that saving with me?

Archi_Bald

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Not chooising to pay by DD is my choice though but why should I be forced to do something I am not happy with for a few extra quid.

It's high time banks were forced into providing savings accounts with a rate equal to the 123 account without the current account bit and relegating current accounts for their true purpose. For day to day cash management.

Think about what you wrote there.

As Coldiron already said, you are not forced to do anything at all. But I do notice you feel, quite rightly, that you shouldn't be forced to do anything you don't want to do. At the same time, however, you are asking that banks should be forced to do something they don't want to do. Not sure how you determine who can be forced into doing things and who can't.

Leaving this aside, however: presumably you think banks should be forced to offer a certain interest rate by law? Or some other government edict? Have you really thought this through? Would you also force banks to offer loans and mortgages at state-controlled rates? And would you force people to run banks, because with your controls, nobody would want to run any bank.

We are, thankfully, living in a free market economy, so your suggestions will, luckily, not be implemented anytime soon. Not even the two red Eds would come up with such a scheme.

bigadaj

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Think about what you wrote there.

As Coldiron already said, you are not forced to do anything at all. But I do notice you feel, quite rightly, that you shouldn't be forced to do anything you don't want to do. At the same time, however, you are asking that banks should be forced to do something they don't want to do. Not sure how you determine who can be forced into doing things and who can't.

Leaving this aside, however: presumably you think banks should be forced to offer a certain interest rate by law? Or some other government edict? Have you really thought this through? Would you also force banks to offer loans and mortgages at state-controlled rates? And would you force people to run banks, because with your controls, nobody would want to run any bank.

We are, thankfully, living in a free market economy, so your suggestions will, luckily, not be implemented anytime soon. Not even the two red Eds would come up with such a scheme.

Well not wholly a free market economy, otherwise two of the largest banks in the uk would have been allowed to fold rather than being bailed out by the taxpayer to the tune of tens of billions of pounds.

Don't get me wrong, free market economics seems to be the lest worst economic system that humans can come up with, but surely it should be allowed to,operate freely in such circumstances. Aware of and apologies for the tautology.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I'm sorry I am exaggerating here to make a point but let's face it what is the country doing to assist the saver?

From my experience sweet nothing. Yeah we get an ISA allowance but look at the rates for the cash element! Totally laughable.

You should not have to jump through hoops to get a return on your cash of 3% or 5%. Or open multiple current accounts and cycle money through them all.

Archi_Bald

"The country"? Who is that? Why would "the country" have any obligation to "the saver"?

If there was such an obligation by "the country", would they not also have an obligation towards "the borrower", and how would "the country" balance these two obligations?

Stop your moaning, exploit the loopholes that you have as saver.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Archi_Bald wrote: »

"The country"? Who is that? Why would "the country" have any obligation to "the saver"?

If there was such an obligation by "the country", would they not also have an obligation towards "the borrower", and how would "the country" balance these two obligations?

Stop your moaning, exploit the loopholes that you have as saver.

That is the point there should not be "loopholes" as a saver. OK Then the country has no obligations to anything or anyone - lets totally scrap benefits and perhaps the country/government should have let Lloyds and RBS and Northern Rock etc go down the pan and not bail them out. Lets also scrap the NHS and have a totally private system. Why should the country/people/government provide free healthcare? Lets just get rid of it all as the country/government/people or whatever you want to call it has nor responsibility or obligation for any of it.

I remember a time when I could get 5% on just a savings account and many years back 10%. What has happened?

You perhaps are unlike me and are young and do not rely on your savings to supplement your income.

There are a lot of pensioners relying on their savings and many are not MSE Savvy like you and would not think or understand to open a multitude of Current Accounts and filter money through them to pick up bits of "cash back" and interest. You of course couldn't give a jot an appear to be typical of this self centered society that seems to be getting worse and worse.

But anyway your time will come eventually.