Should the government offer British savers 100% protection?
Yes - it should put its money where its mouth is
64% (32 votes)
No - the new £50,000 limit is adequate
36% (18 votes)
Total votes: 50
Vote now on our poll
Should people be allowed early access to their pension savings?
Yes they should be allowed unlimited early access
0%
Yes but access should be limited
38%
No
62%
Total votes: 13
What our users are talking about
Moneywise
News, articles, advice and guides from everyday money issues to how to grow your money. Covering all aspects of personal finance, Moneywise offers independent news and views, forums and blogs, as well as unique compare and buy comparison tools.
Moneywise distributes services supplied by Interactive Investor. Interactive Investor Trading Limited, trading as "Interactive Investor", is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Copyright © 2008 Moneywise. Terms & Conditions About Contact us Subscriptions
Comments
Anyone with a lot of money will now put their money in a bank in Ireland.This will cause problems in the UK as there will be less money in our banks to lend
Yes off course the Government should protest 100% of our money. There can't be any half way house with this issue.
Money should be taken from the overpaid under worked rich bankers that caused all the mess. But I still say the government should cover it then, tyhey should claim it from them.
NO the Government shold not cover any more than it does not. Does no-one understand that it will cost the government to do this. An insurance will need to be bought on our behalf to cover this extra cover. If you have more than £35,000 then split it over several banks, its easy enough!
Most certainly savings should be 100% INCLUDING INTEREST guaranteed
We have worked long and hard for our savings, ofcoure the british government should cover us. No one could have borrowed money if it wasn´t for savers and tax payers.
Quote: If you have more than £35,000 then split it over several banks, its easy enough!
Oh yeah? What if there aren't enough different banks left to do this? I need about 15 differently FSCS-registered institutions - no easy task, unless I'm happy to lose money by accepting a rate like 3% gross (which I'm not!). It was hard enough a month ago, and even more difficult now.
not if you have fixed term bonds , then your stuffed , like me
the only way is to die , and claim it eairly in probate
Why the hell should the goverment bail out a private company! MAD MAD MAD! shouldn't they (the private sector) of been made to have a insurance policy of there own to prevent this kind of thing happening? (or woyuld that be too easy), after all they (the private sector) have made millions out of us, at the end of the day they are still sitting happy enough with millions, and it's people like us that have to foot the bill.
No 50 000, is adequate. The Northern rock fiasco was over a year ago. Anyone who watches the news knows what the minimum guarantee is. If you weren't prudent enough to diversify your savings in the past year, I don't see why my tax money should bail you out now. Yes you may have to accept less than market leading rates, but that is the price you pay for minimizing your exposure to risk. If you want higher returns you have to accept higher risks. Some of us are scraping together every last penny after fuel food and heating to try and get a deposit for a house after a decade of being shut out of the housing market. I have every sympathy for those that might lose some of their life savings, but if you are lucky enough to have 15 separate accounts of £50,000 then you really aren't first in the que for state help. Its your money- take some responsibility for it.
OF COURSE OUR SAVINGS SHOULD BE 100% SAFE! MY HUSBAND AND MYSELF HAVE WORKED HARD THE LAST 30 YEARS TO BUILD UP OUR SAVINGS!!!! WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ENOUGH TO PAY "THE EVER RISING UTILITY BILLS" WHEN WE RETIRE. WE HAVE GONE WITHOUT HOLIDAYS AND NIGHT OUT ETC. SO WHY SHOULD WE LET THE GOVERNMENT JUST "TAKE" OUR HARD EARNED MONEY!!!
MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE DONE WHAT OTHERS HAVE DONE..... NOT BOTHERED WORKING! TAKE EVERYTHING GOING! AND THEN NOT WORRY ABOUT OUR OLD AGE!!!! LET THE "TAX PAYERS" KEEP US!!! OTHERS SEEM TO MANAGE IT PRETTY WELL!!!
so greedy buggers like you think investing for high rstes isn't gambling then?
No definitely not. Why should I, a tax payer with no savings, underwrite your savings through my taxes?
no Bridget, the British government has no money. It is taxpayers like me,people with no savings that you selfishly expect to bail you out. Get lost!
Why should the taxpayer take on the dept of the banks
I have a One Year Bond with Kaupthing Edge for over the current £50k safe limit. I took it out 6 weeks ago. I am not happy! I feel strongly that we are repeatedly taxed in life and death, so any money saved should be 100% safe, with no stress attached. Pardon the pun but that is the 'pay back' incentive to save.
yes they should guarantee the 100% of our savings as without them the banking industry would grind to a halt, furthermore an idea would be to stop the banks like hbos/lloyds tsb coming under the same banner for guarantee purposes and others?.
regards djm.
I can't vote...
The 'government' is a euphamism for the taxpayer, it will use taxpayers money to guarantee savings. Our savings will therefore be guaranteed by our money (tax money)
I don't see why millions of penniless taxpayers should guarantee the savings of the uber-wealthy.
On the other hand if they don't, those savings will leave the country which will exacebate the problem.
The only way to stop the bank run and restore confidence is the 100% guarantee.
No, not "of course"!
If you want your savings to be 100% guaranteed by the government, then invest in gilts or government savings schemes - and, of course, accept the lower interest payable to you for the security.
Am I the only one thinking that actualy the people that caused this crisis are those who borrowed recklessly, spent the money and are now defaulting on their loans or expected to do so in future: which means an awful lot of typical especially youger people today, and of course Gordon Brown on all our behalfs. So is the solution to make it harder for people to walk away from their debts and the prevention for the next crunch to ensure those without the means to repay don't have access to credit in future. Yet i still see TV ads for companies who will sell you a tele on the never never (sorry, weekly payments) (other forms and sources of credit exist).
Many of the losers are the frugal who have been squirreling money away into ISAs, SIPPs and ordinary pension funds so they don't have to rely on
the tax-payer to fund their retirement.
But to come to the point, only the reckless or very rich would have more than £50,000 in a single bank or share or bond or investment vehicle at the best of times and right now you would have to be an ostrich to have let that state of affairs continue to date. I think £50k is a big enough guarantee.
(competing interests: taxpayer, small icesave cash ISA)
I would presume that the government guaranteeing all the savings that people have in the banks also grantees the government their tax take that they so kindly charge in interest on the savings.
Thinking about it recursively, the government have already taxed the saving before they were put into the accounts as in most cases they were salary derived and presumably there has been NI taken as well so those who have saved have already covered well over 30% of their stake!
Yes 100% should be guaranteed, no doubt about it.
For those people who say "no" you know the best way is to split your savings between banks - for some people that's not desirable.
I've borrowed a considerable sum in order to buy another property in the future but for the time being it's all in one bank offsetting my current mortgage. This is important - offset mortgages use ones savings or in my case my savings and extra borrowing to my advantage. My main mortgage is being reduced by the savings and it's no good split around different banks. This is one reason why the Government must protect 100% of savings.
Yes the Government should cover savings by 100%. We worked hard to save anything we can, and don't really have time to mess about moving money around. We could probably cause quite a run on banks/buidling societies if we rationalised the nest egg that has been buit up over a number of years.
Three points to make - let's not forget that in part the actions of the government taxing pension funds has made it even more necessary for us to have savings for older age - final salary schemes are a rarity now in the private sector, and our pension funds now must be in a dire position on the stock exchange.
ISAs were a greatly heralded savings vehicle - tax relief etc. How many caught a cold by following the Grovernment's encouragement to save in an ISA which linked with the Stock market is worth little more than 20% of the original amount invested. They also removed the tax advantage.
Where is the FSA in all of this? Clearly they have missed the warning signs and really not in control of what is happening in the UK. Again a goverment body, funded by the firms they regulate - ie by us the consumers. (Another indirect tax).
Yes they should cover savings by 100%. As a man in the street who has worked for 30 years +, who has seen the government tax us more and more, wasting money all over the place on minority shemes. I have paid my fair share of taxes and felt the negative impact of government financial policies, I should have what I have managed to save in that time in financial institutions guaranteed.
Let's ensure that that the so called fat cats at the top are made to slim down a bit and rejoin the real world.Let's sell the right things and not what gets the broker the commission regardless. Lets ensure that the FSA is really on top of what is going on - the debacle over HBOS/shortselling/rumour mongering was shameful - did anyone in a high regulatory position carry the can for this ? A few made a killing at the expense of the majority - how can this happen?
Originally, I thought that the £50,000 was adequate protection, as surely only the obscenely wealthy would have so much money that splitting between fincancial institutions would not bea simple task.. However, since then, I have thought of a number of instances where people could be significantly impacted by not having all of their funds (including those over £50k) protected..... for example: 1. a pensioner with lumpsum, living off interest; 2. a person/couple/family saving a deposit to buy a home; or 3. anyone who has been saving the maximum entitlement in ISAs over several years, etc.
Of course 100% should be guaranteed. Why would any one in there right mind want to put substantial sums of money in a bank that cannot guarantee a 100% return?
If people are prudent enough to save over a number of years and allow banks, building societies etc to use that money to invest, the very least you want back is exactly what you put in.
Post new comment