Newsbot Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Treasury Minister Allan Bell defends his plan to help depositors with the Isle of Man's Kaupthing, Singer and Friedlander (KSFIoM) bank. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7882095.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.I.N.G. Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Also, some idiot (Henderson Douglas North) is to ask Mr Bell "If he will consider, with the minister for Health and Social Security, a new scheme or amendments to current schemes (either or both DHSS and treasury rebate/credit schemes) to assist savers whose returns are now so poor that they are finding it difficult to live, but who cannot access any state help because of their savings?" What planet are these people on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Also, some idiot (Henderson Douglas North) is to ask Mr Bell"If he will consider, with the minister for Health and Social Security, a new scheme or amendments to current schemes (either or both DHSS and treasury rebate/credit schemes) to assist savers whose returns are now so poor that they are finding it difficult to live, but who cannot access any state help because of their savings?" What planet are these people on? Not really if you think about it. If you have £20,000 in the bank as a pensioner your above the threshold for any form of state means tested benefits. However, that £20,000 at 1% is only earning you £200 a year in interest ... hardly enough to supplement anything. I'm glad that he's actually raised it as an issue because the interest rate drops are hitting pensioners income terribly. Any top up benefits should more likely be linked to income received not capital held; we could be down to zero rates soon and where would that leave anyone who relies on bank interest to pay food and heating bills? Edited spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.I.N.G. Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Also, some idiot (Henderson Douglas North) is to ask Mr Bell"If he will consider, with the minister for Health and Social Security, a new scheme or amendments to current schemes (either or both DHSS and treasury rebate/credit schemes) to assist savers whose returns are now so poor that they are finding it difficult to live, but who cannot access any state help because of their savings?" What planet are these people on? Not really if you think about it. If you have £20,000 in the bank as a pensioner your above the threshold for any form of state means tested benefits. However, that £20,000 at 1% is only earning you £200 a year in interest ... hardly enough to supplement anything. I'm glad that he's actually raised it as an issue because the interest rate drops are hitting pensioners income terribly. Any top up benefits should more likely be linked to income received not capital held; we could be down to zero rates soon and where would that leave anyone who relies on bank interest to pay food and heating bills? Edited spelling Easy, spend your savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Easy, spend your savings. Exactly, isn't that what savings are for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Easy, spend your savings. Yes, and end up on means tested benefits anyway once the money is gone (fool) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Yes, and end up on means tested benefits anyway once the money is gone (fool) So? Why should the state fund you in the mean time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Easy, spend your savings. Exactly, isn't that what savings are for? Maybe, but only if you've got enough savings. No interest and inflation is not something usually built into most retired savers calculations. Most retirement savings and lump sums are designed to be spent over a persons retired lifetime, not to all go within a few years, lower the capital and reduce the future interest whilst still battling inflation. Penalising savers also takes real money out of the economy as savers usually spend their interest, and don't want to spend their capital. It's wrong that savers should be penalised, when it was borrowers that got us into this mess. The banks should be forced to lend, and savers shouldn't be paying the price until they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The more worrying part of the interest rate falls is yet to be debhated though. How much do you think tax take will be down on last year following the latest rate reductions. Last year a retired person with £100k in the bank at 6% paid a maximum of £1,080 in tax (at 18%). This year £100k at 2% would yield £360 in tax. That's a massive reduction in revenue for IOMG on top of the VAT loss. Times are going to be very tough on the government kitty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Maybe, but only if you've got enough savings. No interest and inflation is not something usually built into most retired savers calculations. Most retirement savings and lump sums are designed to be spent over a persons retired lifetime, not to all go within a few years, lower the capital and reduce the future interest whilst still battling inflation. Penalising savers also takes real money out of the economy as savers usually spend their interest, and don't want to spend their capital. It's wrong that savers should be penalised, when it was borrowers that got us into this mess. The banks should be forced to lend, and savers shouldn't be paying the price until they do. I know it's a bitch, I've savings I'm getting fuckall on too, and it really isn't fair. It sucks that these people have saved and planned and now the plans not worked out. But that's the way it is, you can't guarantee any returns, they're a lot better off with savings than investments, they'd be down 40% odd in that case. It sucks, but they've still got the dosh, they've only lost out on earnings potential. The taxpayer shouldn't lose out either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.I.N.G. Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I've got 20k in savings, I get a pension, I've lost out in interest, I haven't got the brass neck to expect the government to help me out so that I can keep my savings intact. If I need money I spend some savings, when the good times return I save. That's how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I know it's a bitch, I've savings I'm getting fuckall on too, and it really isn't fair. It sucks that these people have saved and planned and now the plans not worked out. But that's the way it is, you can't guarantee any returns, they're a lot better off with savings than investments, they'd be down 40% odd in that case. It sucks, but they've still got the dosh, they've only lost out on earnings potential. The taxpayer shouldn't lose out either. Trying to understand your perspective on this given our discussion about responsibility on another thread. If taxpayers as you say have a responsibility for this crisis then why shouldn't they help out those in need? I know what you are saying about the fact that they still have money, but in the case of pensioners as Albert Tatlock says would be the financial position of pensioners if they do eat up their savings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Trying to understand your perspective on this given our discussion about responsibility on another thread. If taxpayers as you say have a responsibility for this crisis then why shouldn't they help out those in need? I know what you are saying about the fact that they still have money, but in the case of pensioners as Albert Tatlock says would be the financial position of pensioners if they do eat up their savings? The taxpayers are already helping, by keeping the banks afloat so these people are only losing their interest and not their savings too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Trying to understand your perspective on this given our discussion about responsibility on another thread. If taxpayers as you say have a responsibility for this crisis then why shouldn't they help out those in need? I know what you are saying about the fact that they still have money, but in the case of pensioners as Albert Tatlock says would be the financial position of pensioners if they do eat up their savings? The taxpayers are already helping, by keeping the banks afloat so these people are only losing their interest and not their savings too. Then I suppose then that those who will struggle to live on savings alone should have a top-up. Better than have them use their savings and really struggle when these run out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The taxpayers are already helping, by keeping the banks afloat so these people are only losing their interest and not their savings too. But gaining what? Nowt but job losses and a graph heading toward a depression. Joe Taxpayer wants and needs the banks to return the favour and start lending. That's a reasonable enough request IMO, though instead the banks sit on what they have (including Joe Taxpayers money) and tighten lending even on perfectly viable businesses. Meanwhile, Gordon Broon is as much use as a fart in a spacesuit - has handed over our money - for what so far? I seriously predict some serious riot sh1t if the banks don't start turning things around soon, and unemployment starts rising much further and at the rate it is. I really do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.