pongo Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 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'm a saver. These interest rates significantly affect me. But it was a cocked up economics that got us into this mess. We always had to assume that the interest rates could not be depended on. Most people with savings invested in interest bearing accounts will have fixed some of their savings (and therefore their interest rates) over specific terms. Same as people with mortgages and other debts. Many will still be earning at least 5% or probably more. Many who have been well advised over the past few years will also have a chunk split into € - and will be earning well above current UK rates if fixed over 18 - 36 months. They will have also done very well, so far, on the exchange rate. So it isn't all doom and gloom for savers. By the time many of the fixed terms are coming to an end for many people, the UK rates on GBP may again be beginning to increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 £94 million - that's £1175 from every man, woman and child living on the island. No taxpayer guarantees about how much we will ever get back? Why aren't we taking this to the European court or elsewhere to get the money back by suing the UK government for taking much of the money under the guise of an anti-terrorism law? What guarantees have we that it won't happen again if we don't seek and obtain such a judgement in our favour? What's going to happen if this payout is approved by Tynwald before the budget, and what happens if in the budget we get major cutbacks or even tax rises to make up the shortfall, never mind deal with the VAT hit? Where's all the money the banks have supposedly been paying into the system? I understand what Alan Bell is trying to do here...but I expect him and others to not just effectively say 'we have to take a hit on this one'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I understand what Alan Bell is trying to do here...but I expect him and others to not just effectively say 'we have to take a hit on this one'. I agree with you, but the language he's using suggests there's more to it. I gather they must be confident that they'll recover a good proportion of the funds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 The plan from documents is that they will recoevr everything if the liquidator raises 60pence in the pound which he should without money in England Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.