The government will now GIVE you 20% of your deposit

stator

The-Joker wrote: »

It sounds great, for a couple if they both save £200 per month then they can get unto £3000 each after 5 years. Six grand is not to be sniffed at.

I wonder what kind of interest rate these accounts will get?

I should think the banks will feel under no obligation to offer competitive interest rates since the .gov.uk bonus is soo high.

NorthFin

Cyberman60 wrote: »

Agreed. If they save 24K they get an extra 6K for a total 30K. I wish I'd had that incentive at their age. The Tories have brains and thus come up with the best ideas. :T

Why 24K?

£200 per month each for 5 years is not 24K?

Thats only £6K each over 5 years and something about they can start with a grand each, not sure how that works?

Loughton_Monkey

NorthFin wrote: »

Why 24K?

£200 per month each for 5 years is not 24K?

Thats only £6K each over 5 years and something about they can start with a grand each, not sure how that works?

Maybe the hint in the word "they" was too subtle?

Cyberman60

NorthFin wrote: »

Why 24K?

£200 per month each for 5 years is not 24K?

Thats only £6K each over 5 years and something about they can start with a grand each, not sure how that works?

200 a month for 60 months(5 years) = 12K so for two people saving that is 24K

westernpromise

Cyberman60 wrote: »

Well, they shouldn't have 50% of students going to university anyway. That was a stupid policy yet again by Labour in order to massage youth unemployment figures.

That's always the problem when you do that. Fiddling unemployment often ends in or requires a nasty social injustice.

An example is that in the 1970s, married women's earnings were taxed at their husband's marginal rate. If a married woman accidentally paid too much tax, the tax refund went to guess who? - not her. Her husband.

A woman who got married to a higher rate taxpayer would thus suddenly start to lose 60% of her earnings in tax where before it might have been 25%. Take off the cost of getting to work and clothing herself for work and she was working for almost nothing.

So modestly paid married women didn't bother working, but didn't qualify as unemployed - which gave men an advantage in job seeking at their cost. Prosperous working women already on the top rate did continue working. So a policy that helpfully concealed male unemployment very clearly did so at the expense of one group: women less prosperous than themselves.

The same applies today with degrees, because the people who will lose are those who pay for them but who then fail to gain from having one. The gain has been to massage employment, but the balancing pain is a lifetime of debt visited on a handful of poor people to pay for their combined honours "degree" in Waste Management with Dance.

And yes, the latter is a real degree: http://www.justcourses.com/Courses/University_of_Northampton/F8WM-Wastes_Management_and_Dance/348206-1-0.html

N1AK

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Not worth it? Are you for real.
This equates to a 25% ISA.

That's not how compound interest works it'll be an 8% ISA at best. Doesn't stop it being beneficial for the tiny group of people who will use it, but let's not pretend it's game changing.

ViolaLass

Piggywiggy wrote: »

Not a lot of help unless you're only just starting to save then, never mind.

Surely when you start is precisely when this scheme would suit you, rather than when you've already saved a chunk.

Piggywiggy

ViolaLass wrote: »

Surely when you start is precisely when this scheme would suit you, rather than when you've already saved a chunk.

What I meant is that it's of no help to me.

ViolaLass

Piggywiggy wrote: »

What I meant is that it's of no help to me.

My mistake, I now realise I misread your post (I read 'if' instead of 'unless'). Sorry about that.

lukeh23