Banks stealing our savings

evenasus

JoeCrystal wrote: »

Sure, as long you contribute toward NI for at least ten years. The planned policy is that if you pay less than ten years, you would not be getting it at all. Quite fair really.

So it's fair for person A, who works and contributes toward NI for 35 years, to receive a lower state pension than person B, who works and contributes for 10 years?

Glen_Clark

gadgetmind wrote: »

The capital injections into UK banks were certainly not ideal, but they were mostly done as new ordinary equity issues, so there is a decent chance of HMG coming out fairly well.

HMG may come out fairly well but not the taxpayer - Money printing creates inflation which is a tax and everyone is paying it - especially the poor who haven't benefited from the rise in asset prices.

gadgetmind wrote: »

Certainly better than letting the whole lot fall in a messy heap as has happened in the past.

Perhaps. But doesn't appear to be better than bailing out domestic depositors and letting the losses fall on those investors who chose to take a risk by investing in the Bank - and the Bankers who caused the crisis. Iceland did, and is recovering well.

JoeCrystal

evenasus wrote: »

So it's fair for person A, who works and contributes toward NI for 35 years, to receive a lower state pension than person B, who works and contributes for 10 years?

Huh? Can you explain how this can happen then? As far I am aware, let say Person A is on the old side with 30 years and Person B get new pension with 10 years. As far I am aware, a person now gets at least £110 per week with thirty years. Person B however get 10/35 part of the state pension, so £40 per week? Unless I misunderstand something.

Nevertheless, what I was saying that when you said "When someone who has worked just a few years, or not ever worked at all, will receive the higher flat rate pension." I thought you meant that people that work for a few years or not at all literal.

EDIT: That is why I explained the policy of not paying pension out to anyone who is under ten years limit.

But do you acutally meant people who only work for few years but spent all their lives on benefit, getting NI anyway without working? Then I agreed, it is very unfair.

Cheers,
Joe

grey_gym_sock

gadgetmind wrote: »

The capital injections into UK banks were certainly not ideal, but they were mostly done as new ordinary equity issues, so there is a decent chance of HMG coming out fairly well.

yes, though HMG could easily have improved their chances of coming out ahead by refusing to put a penny in unless ordinary shareholders were wiped out first.

or rather: they did that with NR & B&B; but could have done it with RBS & lloyds, too.

grey_gym_sock

Glen_Clark wrote: »

But doesn't appear to be better than bailing out domestic depositors and letting the losses fall on those investors who chose to take a risk by investing in the Bank - and the Bankers who caused the crisis. Iceland did, and is recovering well.

compensating the depositors, without getting anything back in return, would surely have been more expensive than what HMG actually did.

if there was a better approach, it would have involved a good bank / bad bank split, so the deposits were matched with the safer loan book, and the bondholders with the dodgier loans plus dodgy derivative operations.

i suspect something like that could have been done. though i 'm not sure we can extrapolate from iceland, since part of their approach was refusing take on their banks' liabilities to foreigners.

jabba42

I was and still am messed up in the Cyprus nonsense. I really do not trust the any financial or governmental institution now. They will not be able to help themselves when D day arrives. Anyone with over 85K in their bank accounts is any easy target for state sponsored theft.

Rich people do not go out on the streets are burn stuff down.

grey_gym_sock

jabba42 wrote: »

Rich people do not go out on the streets are burn stuff down.

of course not. they have ppl to do that for them.

gadgetmind

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Money printing creates inflation which is a tax

We haven't (yet) had money printing as the gilts that have been purchased haven't been monetised, we haven't (yet) had high inflation, and inflation isn't a tax.

Other than that, spot on.

jabba42

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

of course not. they have ppl to do that for them.

I am really surprised there has been no revenge attacks on the decision makers in Cyprus to be honest. Are the Russians turning into a bunch of softies?

jabba42

gadgetmind wrote: »

We haven't (yet) had money printing as the gilts that have been purchased haven't been monetised, we haven't (yet) had high inflation, and inflation isn't a tax.

Other than that, spot on.

Not to mention the theft by having low interest rates to rob savers who are forced to seek out this forum with the question " How can I get a better return on my money"