Raising the £35,000 savings guarantee?

Fella

Meltdown wrote: »

An increase (to a level unspecified, IIRC) was suggested by the Treasury/BoE/FSA in their consultation documents. They probably had £50,000 in mind.
Remember that the £35,000 figure (originally 100% on first £2000 & 90% on remainder up to £35K) was fixed some years ago. A simple upgrading in line with inflation (whichever index you care to believe) would take it close to £50K, perhaps.
1959

Gordon scum Brown has never upgraded anything in line with inflation. Fiscal drag is one of his most favourite stealth taxes.

Boy o boy am I enjoying watching that thoroughly detestable horror of a man squirm on a daily basis these days. It's taken the rest of NuLbour a surprisingly long time to realise what an unelectable turd he is. But they're getting there slowly.

earlgrey_3

Fella wrote: »

Gordon scum Brown has never upgraded anything in line with inflation. Fiscal drag is one of his most favourite stealth taxes.

Yep, even the duty on fuel hasn't been increased with inflation and even scrapped Major's annual "escalator" tax on it. Shocking.

Oblivion

RayWolfe wrote: »

One point of clarity.
The figure that was talked about by Government - in passing - was 100,000 dollars, i.e., the present US limit. That would equate to 50,000 pounds, not a million miles from the present figure.

Well I was just going by this BBC News item from 22nd September 2007 which definitely stated that Chancellor Darling was looking at ways of guaranteeing £100,000 of savings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7007835.stm

.

moonrakerz

earlgrey wrote: »

If your kind of economy is one where pensioners end their lives in poverty after losing their life's savings then you're welcome to it - but it's not one I would ever want to see here.

Firstly, if you are going to quote my posts please don't alter the quote to say something that I didn't say in the first place ! It doesn't lend much strength to your point of view ! I said "Guildford", not "tory Guildford".

Sorry, but that is the kind of economy we now live in ! We now have a Government that increases tax on 5.5 million of the lowest paid people in Britain - then says it didn't realise that !
By bailing out NR the Govt made it clear that it would bail out any bank that got into difficulties- either by bad luck or bad management ! Is that sending out a good signal to everyone ?

Northern Rock was ruined by appallingly bad management who were on little more than a massive ego trip. They "raised" NR from a small provincial building society to the country's 5th largest mortgage lender - all on borrowed money. And they all cashed in their shares at the top of the market before word got out that they couldn't borrow any more money.

If we go back a few years, the only place you could get a mortgage was from a Building Society. All they had to lend was their profits and the deposits from savers. So every loan was covered. If you wanted a mortgage you joined the queue and showed the building society that you had a good savings record whilst you were in the queue.
Then the system was changed - you could get a mortgage from a bank- and you could change a Building Society into a bank. Bingo - free money for all !! And people like Adam Applegarth could go from being the boss of a little (but 100% safe !!) backstreet Building Society in Newcastle to being the boss of a multi-zillion pound bank - or should that be house of cards ?

A Building Society has not gone bust for over one hundred years; why? because when one did get into difficulties, all the others rallied round to help - even if that meant a takeover.
When NR got into difficulties, the other banks wouldn't touch it with a bargepole - unless there was the probability of a huge profit for them if it went right. If it went wrong the taxpayer would pick up the tab. Which is just what this Govt did !

RayWolfe

Oblivion wrote: »

Well I was just going by this BBC News item from 22nd September 2007 which definitely stated that Chancellor Darling was looking at ways of guaranteeing £100,000 of savings.

Assuming we can trust the BBC, I stand corrected.

RayWolfe

moonrakerz wrote: »

Then the system was changed - you could get a mortgage from a bank- and you could change a Building Society into a bank. Bingo - free money for all !!

... and who, I wonder, changed that?

Fella

earlgrey wrote: »

Yep, even the duty on fuel hasn't been increased with inflation and even scrapped Major's annual "escalator" tax on it. Shocking.

so you can't actually name anythiing he has increased in line with inflation then? Thought not.

Estate duty? Stamp duty? Income tax thresholds?

I could go on but why bother. He is scum & wouldn't know what the truth was if it hit him in the face with a cricket bat.

Now there's a thought.

I still remember the smug way that detestable liar "commended his budget to the house". It was with the "reduction of the base rate of income tax to 20%, the lowest rate for blah blah years".

Shame he forgot to mention the removal of the 10% rate.

And now they're saying they made "a mistake".

Lol, yeah. The mistake was in thinking they could get away with yet another general mugging of the population.

Maybe they should try telling the truth sometimes. Maybe they should, just occasionally, answer a straight question, rather than begin their response with "what's important is......" & then trot out some lying garbage spin.

Even the worst of politicians understood you can't fool all of the people all of the time. This lot try to do exactly that.

Can't wait to see the detestable scumbag lose.

Oblivion

Fella wrote: »

He is scum & wouldn't know what the truth was if it hit him in the face with a cricket bat.

Can't wait to see the detestable scumbag lose.

Now don't beat about the bush, tell us what you really think of Gordon. :laugh:

Fella

Yeah, sorry to rant, just can't stand him.

RayWolfe

Fortunately though, you don't let that influence your judgement.