Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Whinging Savers


Setantii
 Share

Recommended Posts

So I take it you don't get any form of tax credits or allowances for the kids ?

No ?

That's good , because as a saver I really do hate having to pay tax for other people's children out of my savings income .

i was going to say that.

paying for schools but not being allowed to have children come round and play with me at all and act like im important and talk sternly and fool little children that i dont have sheet for brains. peodophilia - 40 billion parents cant be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have a job but I can't afford the luxury of savings and as far as I'm aware my work collegues are all in a similar position. We earn just enough to put a roof over our heads, pay the bills, put food on the table and buy a few pieces of cheap plastic tat to ammuse the kids.

So when I hear people earning enough to have spare cash to save, who now have their savings protected by the taxpayer (which includes people like me who don't have savings but pay into the system)

Aha, another person rotten to the bone by envy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I take it you don't get any form of tax credits or allowances for the kids ?

No ?

That's good , because as a saver I really do hate having to pay tax for other people's children out of my savings income .

I pay tax and yeah I get some of it back through tax credits, big ******ing deal, I still pay more in to the system then I get out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same token, anybody stashing their savings into a bank account, assuming that the bank will never fail and they will always be paid decent interest rates, is also just as deluded surely?

it's strange , but I find myself agreeing with you in part.

when the Credit Crunch happened, all of the people with deposits in banks should have lost all of their money since the banking system was totally underfunded and broke.

the government stepped in and guaranteed those deposits at the expense of taxpayers.

that the savers have ANY money at this point is due to taxes paid by working people.

they really can't complain if the government steps in and helps the homeowners since the homeowners really are likely getting much less than the savers got in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's strange , but I find myself agreeing with you in part.

when the Credit Crunch happened, all of the people with deposits in banks should have lost all of their money since the banking system was totally underfunded and broke.

the government stepped in and guaranteed those deposits at the expense of taxpayers.

that the savers have ANY money at this point is due to taxes paid by working people.

they really can't complain if the government steps in and helps the homeowners since the homeowners really are likely getting much less than the savers got in the long run.

even my stupid brain knows thats wrong.

sonething to do with banks having lots of divisions etc, it was the investment banks that lost the money, not the savings banks. what you said is wronger than what even gordon brown could say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's strange , but I find myself agreeing with you in part.

when the Credit Crunch happened, all of the people with deposits in banks should have lost all of their money since the banking system was totally underfunded and broke.

the government stepped in and guaranteed those deposits at the expense of taxpayers.

that the savers have ANY money at this point is due to taxes paid by working people.

they really can't complain if the government steps in and helps the homeowners since the homeowners really are likely getting much less than the savers got in the long run.

Well I'm glad somebody else can see the apparent hypocricy displayed by whinging savers.

Edited by Setantii
Link to comment
Share on other sites

even my stupid brain knows thats wrong.

sonething to do with banks having lots of divisions etc, it was the investment banks that lost the money, not the savings banks. what you said is wronger than what even gordon brown could say

I'm sorry but YOU are just wrong.

it wasn't just the investment banks that lost money.

mortgage making is a function of the regular day to day bank.

the same bank that holds the savings.

the ultimate breakdown of the banking system was that the banks were funding mortgages to people that couldn't maintain their payments in a negative housing market.

government guarantees are paid with taxpayer taxes.

northern rock did not have anything left when it was crunched.

that the savers got ALL of their money back is precisely due to the taxpayer making good their accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's strange , but I find myself agreeing with you in part.

when the Credit Crunch happened, all of the people with deposits in banks should have lost all of their money since the banking system was totally underfunded and broke.

the government stepped in and guaranteed those deposits at the expense of taxpayers.

that the savers have ANY money at this point is due to taxes paid by working people.

they really can't complain if the government steps in and helps the homeowners since the homeowners really are likely getting much less than the savers got in the long run.

********

for a start

if the savings were not guaranteed there wouldn't be a penny in banks now

what you call homeowners are until it is paid for, debtowners

your average saver just wants somewhere safe to put thier money that'll it'll be covered against inflation

its about safety and they put trust in banks to look after it

its not supposed to be a gamble

they pay tax on the interest...think about it

if it was a gamble you'd expect some big f--ing returns

Link to comment
Share on other sites

even my stupid brain knows thats wrong.

sonething to do with banks having lots of divisions etc, it was the investment banks that lost the money, not the savings banks. what you said is wronger than what even gordon brown could say

But they were the same corporate entity and all on the same balance sheet; bankrupt is bankrupt.

At least depositors would have been at the top of the queue of creditors though. Maybe there'd have been enough in the pot to pay them (but in Northern Rock's case I think they were actually going to run out of money if the run had continued, weren't they?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your average saver just wants somewhere safe to put thier money that'll it'll be covered against inflation

That's actually quite a tall order. Wealth tends to erode unless it's invested productively, and a particular economy only has so many opportunities for productive investment.

In case people hadn't noticed, such opportunities are getting thin on the ground. Lacking them, how is the interest you desire to be created and paid?

The returns that savers have been enjoying in recent years have been largely based on speculative gains, not on actual wealth creation. It was always going to change, and now it has.

Edited by huw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's actually quite a tall order. Wealth tends to erode unless it's invested productively, and a particular economy only has so many opportunities for productive investment.

In case people hadn't noticed, such opportunities are getting thin on the ground. Lacking them, how is the interest you desire to be created and paid?

I sometimes think that the 'man made global warming' scare might actually be a scam to open up a whole new market for people to invest in. As you rightly pointed out there comes a time when capital has nowhere left to expand unless new markets can be created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case people hadn't noticed, such opportunities are getting thin on the ground. Lacking them, how is the interest you desire to be created and paid?

The returns that savers have been enjoying in recent years have been largely based on speculative gains, not on actual wealth creation. It was always going to change, and now it has.

well said.

when you deposit money with a bank, you are loaning it to them so that they can in turn loan it to someone else, or make some other investment that will earn them enough to pay you interest, and leave them some profit.

that really does make them speculators of a sort, and one of the biggest games in town over the past decade has been mortgage lending.

there is no "gamble free" way to make interest/profit on money, though I think that many people believe that that is how savings work.

many here at hpc believe that the homeowners that gambled on housing should have to pay the price and not be bailed out.

same for the banks/bankers, private companies asking for financial assistance from the gov etc.

but then they turn a blind eye to the savers that have gotten some of the biggest assistance to date.

any saver that truly doesn't believe in bailouts needs to give any money they had in their account at the credit crunch BACK to the taxpayer if they are not wanting to be hypocritical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's strange , but I find myself agreeing with you in part.

when the Credit Crunch happened, all of the people with deposits in banks should have lost all of their money since the banking system was totally underfunded and broke.

the government stepped in and guaranteed those deposits at the expense of taxpayers.

that the savers have ANY money at this point is due to taxes paid by working people.

they really can't complain if the government steps in and helps the homeowners since the homeowners really are likely getting much less than the savers got in the long run.

Whether you agree with savers getting compensated via FSCS or not, its the governments duty to fulfill. If it didnt exist there would be an immediate run on the banks. No lending, no atm access or anything else.

Im not sure exactly if the OP is suggesting we get rid of compensation on deposits, or if this is just a, er, whinge. If its the former, then as someone mentioned earlier in the thread the OP is probably out of his tree.

Either way there is a reason why practically every country compensates savers now, and its not just for the benefit of savers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you agree with savers getting compensated via FSCS or not, its the governments duty to fulfill. If it didnt exist there would be an immediate run on the banks. No lending, no atm access or anything else.

Im not sure exactly if the OP is suggesting we get rid of compensation on deposits, or if this is just a, er, whinge. If its the former, then as someone mentioned earlier in the thread the OP is probably out of his tree.

Either way there is a reason why practically every country compensates savers now, and its not just for the benefit of savers.

yes but the same thing can be said for the government making good on all the bad assets in the banks and all the mortgages that the mewers took out.

I agree totally that the government guarantees for saving definitely makes for a more solid financial system, but it isn't cost free for taxpayers.

you might be able to make the argument that the benefit to taxpayers that a solid financial system provides makes up for any amount of tax money that might be used to make it so.

but then the homeowners could make the same argument that keeping people from massive repossessions is outweighed but the monetary cost to taxpayers.

and the banks can and have argued the same thing that the cost to taxpayers is outweighed by tthe benefits of the gov guaranteeing all of the toxic assets.

they are all the same thing basically.

so as the OP says, the savers really can't complain about the others getting their guarantees since they have already received their savings guarantees.

I don't think the savings guarantees are a bad thing personally, the stability provided DOES outweigh the cost to taxpayers imo.

but that doesn't mean that the savers shouldn't be thanking the people like the OP who didn't get the benefit of savings or even the benefit of HPI, but still are paying for the sins of both parties.

he deserves a bit of whinging.

he's paid for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so as the OP says, the savers really can't complain about the others getting their guarantees since they have already received their savings guarantees.

As someone else pointed out above, if there had been no guarantees, most savers would have preferred to have a pile of fivers under their mattress than in a bank making 125% lie-to-buy mortgages, and the current mess would not have happened.

I don't think the savings guarantees are a bad thing personally, the stability provided DOES outweigh the cost to taxpayers imo.

********. Savings guarantees are just another example of moral hazard at work.

Edited by MarkG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but that doesn't mean that the savers shouldn't be thanking the people like the OP who didn't get the benefit of savings or even the benefit of HPI, but still are paying for the sins of both parties.

If creditors aren't protected, then debtors will need to provide more guarantees. As OP has no money, then a bonded labour agreement for him and his family might be the best solution. These things offered to "savers" (that is creditors) are done to soften the relationship they have to the debtors ("homeowners"). Certainly in their absence bankruptcy laws would be completely unreasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone else pointed out above, if there had been no guarantees, most savers would have preferred to have a pile of fivers under their mattress than in a bank making 125% lie-to-buy mortgages, and the current mess would not have happened.

********. Savings guarantees are just another example of moral hazard at work.

they could have just kept their money under the mattress,no one was stopping them.

they CHOSE to take the taxpayers largesse, but were under no obligation to do so.

as for the savings guarantees being moral hazzard, I actually agree that it is.

the fact that it had to be paid out by the taxpayer shows that it was.

but before the guarantees, people lost their savings in panics and bank runs constantly, truly about every 5-10 years.

at least now things tend to be a lot smoother, and people have the choice of which risks to take.

and I personally prefer that to how it was before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was going to say that.

paying for schools but not being allowed to have children come round and play with me at all and act like im important and talk sternly and fool little children that i dont have sheet for brains. peodophilia - 40 billion parents cant be wrong.

I'm not too sure what you're trying to say there .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

many here at hpc believe that the homeowners that gambled on housing should have to pay the price and not be bailed out.

I actually agree with that, they shouldn't be bailed out. If they can't pay, then their houses (sadly) need to be repossessed, because some lender somewhere is entitled to get his money back (or whatever part of it can be recovered by selling the house).

BUT ... if a mortgagor hasn't got the productive capacity to service and repay the shortfall after his house is repossessed and sold; then the outstanding debts will be written off and someone must lose out. The natural loser would be the creditor (i.e. the saver or investor) who accepted the risk/reward of lending the money in the first place, but in our model the burden ultimately falls on (future) taxpayers.

When a debt is written off like that, it's not a bail-out, it's bankruptcy. It might seem distasteful to some that people can 'get away with it', and I guess we could go back to debtors' prisons but even then I don't think that the current crop of debtors could ever possibly service and repay their debts.

So short of harvesting and selling their organs, I see no alternative to letting them off the hook ... and that means someone else (i.e. savers/investors or taxpayers) must carry the can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone else pointed out above, if there had been no guarantees, most savers would have preferred to have a pile of fivers under their mattress than in a bank making 125% lie-to-buy mortgages, and the current mess would not have happened.

One of the problems is that the guarantees mean that savers don't have to check whether the bank is making 125% lie-to-buy mortgages, they can absolve themselves of any need for due diligence by trusting that 'THEY' will make sure all is well, and put things right if they go wrong. The problem is that there is no 'THEY', there is only 'WE'.

In other words, prudent savers end up bailing out imprudent ones (who have chased high interest rates regardless of risk) through the FSA compensation scheme or through taxation.

It would be better if there was some market-pressure on depositors, over-and-above the usual 'best deals for savers' tables that get published in newspapers. Perhaps if the guarantee were limited to 80% of deposits it would concentrate their minds (and also the minds of the banksters who want to attract retail deposits).

Edited by huw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So short of harvesting and selling their organs, I see no alternative to letting them off the hook ... and that means someone else (i.e. savers/investors or taxpayers) must carry the can.

I really don't disagree with that, in fact, I see nothing wrong with the savers lsong out in that situation.

the savers, through the banks, are ultimately gambling that the people are going to make good their mortgage promises.

but in hindsight (and even current and foresight) it was fairly obvious that the mortgages were getting retarded, and the ability to pay them off was becoming impossible.

the corollary of that is that if the borrowers aren't going to be able to repay, then the savers are not only not going to get their interest, but they are going to lose their original capital as well.

anyone that could see that the borrowers were screwed (and that includes many here) should also have seen that the savers were screwed as well.

in retrospect, it really looks like the idea of "savings accounts only ever go up" is just as silly as house prices only ever go up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone that could see that the borrowers were screwed (and that includes many here) should also have seen that the savers were screwed as well.

in retrospect, it really looks like the idea of "savings accounts only ever go up" is just as silly as house prices only ever go up.

Well yes, certainly since the run on Northern Rock there's no excuse not to realise that retail savings were at risk, whether through systemic bank failure or through inflationary printing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.