jeremyjh1 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 ago but I'm not going to suddenly take it all out and spend it at Woolworths. I know - it ceased trading last month!! :D:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 As has been mooted elsewhere, give everybody a lump sum (I've heard sums of between £5k and £50k) It would get people spending and would be easily affordable compared to the billions that Brown is giving to the banks - just so they can continue paying themselves massive bonuses. Great idea. We could levy a tax of between £5K and £50K on everyone to raise the money to give away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Is anyone actually going to stop saving, or spend their savings because of the interest rates? I have a small amount of money saved that I pay into on a regular basis. I do that so a) I have the money I save and b) it earns a bit of interest. Ok, it's not earning as much as it was a few months ago but I'm not going to suddenly take it all out and spend it at Woolworths. Does low interest rates actually encourage spending? Well, yeah, in my case it does; having a mortgage rate that has dropped from £800 a month to virtually nothing obviously means I'll be spending more. However, I don't think there are that many people with this type of mortgage for it to have enough of an effect to rescue the economy, and medium income earners with mortgages aren't the target audience of the interest rate cuts anyway. We're not that important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PK80 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Well, you'd need a time machine to spend it at Woolworths. During the 70s there was high inflation and I've heard that according to economic theory, people should have spend their money instead of saving it, as it would just lose value sitting in a savings account. That is where it doesn't make sense to me. If I save £100 and through a combination of low interest and high inflation it turns out in 1 years time to only be worth (the equivelant of) £90, then i've got £90. If i did what was recomended and had already spent it i'd have £0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PK80 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I know - it ceased trading last month!! :D:D Well spotted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grafikhaus74 Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 Great idea. We could levy a tax of between £5K and £50K on everyone to raise the money to give away. I can assure you that, by the time we, and our children and our grandchildren have paid more taxes well into the future for Brown's folly, those sums will look small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bago Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Well, you'd need a time machine to spend it at Woolworths. During the 70s there was high inflation and I've heard that according to economic theory, people should have spend their money instead of saving it, as it would just lose value sitting in a savings account. But instead they saved more to compensate for the fact that its value was going down. I imagine low interest rates could have a similar effect - you know that the value of your savings won't be as much now, so put a few extra pounds in if you can. Oh no, you don't.... http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/business/Click-39n39-mix--Woolies.4938830.jp Just like a time machine, you can now relive the memories. Online ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 As has been mooted elsewhere, give everybody a lump sum (I've heard sums of between £5k and £50k) It would get people spending and would be easily affordable compared to the billions that Brown is giving to the banks - just so they can continue paying themselves massive bonuses. Have you actually crunched those numbers? Thats One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Billion pounds to give everyone 5k. One point Five Trillion to make it 50k. The bank bailout has cost what, 500 Billion. So you're plan will cost 300 times as much at least. It may sound simlistic, It does rather. but then we've been conned by an entire lexicon of mumbo jumbo - Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, sub-prime, toxic, quantative easing etc. and it's all a load of crap designed to make us appear as if we don't understand high finance (and all those so-called 'experts' do?). I understood all those words. We got into this state because people were encouraged to borrow beyond their means, so Brown says "I know, let's make it cheaper to borrow money at the expense of those who preferred to put something away." Make no mistake, it isn't the Bank of England who have the 'independence' to set interest rates, it's the Government. And with every cut in interest rates, Brown is devaluing the pound and causing sterling to plummet. But what do you expect from this economic genius who flooged off most of our gold at a record low price? Any evidence to suggest that this is actually true (the interest rate bit, I know the gold sale is true). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 All I've noticed is that the interest rate continues to go down making any savings you may have not worth anything yet the credit card interest is constantly going up and therefore making it even harder to either spend or save money - maybe if the interest rate on credit cards came down and people were able to pay off their debts easier and sooner then that may make a difference to the economy? Mind you I am absolutely useless at maths so maybe I've got it all wrong!! Surely no one is in the position of having both savings and credit card debt, that just wouldn't be smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I would clear off everyones debts, based on a percentage scale. up to £xxx ammount of debt = 100% Cleared up to £xxx ammount of debt = 80% Cleared up to £xxx ammount of debt = 60% Cleared up to £xxx ammount of debt = 50% Cleared up to £xxx ammount of debt = 40% Cleared ... etc Maybe those 10k and below get 100% cleared, 20k or below get 80% cleared etc... this would make everyones pockets fuller, and would encourage more spending (as people would have more money) which would mean more in the economy. How would you clear it? Just make it disappear with a magic wand? Have the government pay it back? Why should those in debt get (effectively) free money, whilst those not in debt get nothing but the bill? How would the companies which had lent the money survive, that money didn't grow on trees, ultimately that is someones savings that you're not writing off, or the money from a pension scheme. Unless you wanted the government to pay, which is in effect all of us paying to alleviate other peoples debt. No, I can't see any benefit in this idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.