It is unclear whether taxpayers will see any return on the investment, which was due for repayment in March next year, as the Government has guaranteed only private investments.

When have taxpayers ever seen any return on council tax investments. All monies invested go back into the fat cats pockets

AngrySotonResident wrote:
It is unclear whether taxpayers will see any return on the investment, which was due for repayment in March next year, as the Government has guaranteed only private investments. When have taxpayers ever seen any return on council tax investments. All monies invested go back into the fat cats pockets

So your bins don't get emptied, there are no police, planning control, road maintenance etc?

Don't be so melodramatic!

Sentient wrote:

AngrySotonResident wrote: It is unclear whether taxpayers will see any return on the investment, which was due for repayment in March next year, as the Government has guaranteed only private investments. When have taxpayers ever seen any return on council tax investments. All monies invested go back into the fat cats pockets

So your bins don't get emptied, there are no police, planning control, road maintenance etc? Don't be so melodramatic!

Planning control waste of time, Road maintenance a joke, Police under paid, waste collection reduced yet there is all this money lost in foreign accounts. Again I say when have taxpayers ever seen any return on their investment.

Why has the British Government guaranteed the deposits of an Icelandic bank anyway? The Icelandic Government has to sort out the mess with its banking system just as we have had to sort out ours. If people invest their money outside the UK they are supporting a foregn economy at the expense of the UK, yet when it goes bad they expect the Treasury to support both it and them. Why? Nobody forced you not to bank in the UK. Remember BCCI in the nineties? A bad bank that deserved to go down. If a bank has made false profits on the back of years of derivative trading then why should the taxpayer underwrite that bad business? we didn't bail out Lloyd's Insurance names in the nineties and quite right too. Does Caveat Emptor no longer apply? There will be more failures to come, but now the Government has set a precedent which less scrupulous governments will exploit. Can I look forward to seeing my tax baling out foreign nationals banking with other foreign banks? Because the Chancellor appears to be saying yes to anything now, and he was doing a steady job until now.
If the Government wants to show largesse, let it bail out charities like Naomi House, but individual and even local authority finance directors have to take responsiblity for their own decisions and failings - with their jobs if necessary.

is it me or does £5.7million seem an awful lot of money for a charity to be squirreling away?

Miles Sway wrote:
is it me or does £5.7million seem an awful lot of money for a charity to be squirreling away?

I quite agree i thought money donated was to help people not to sit in a bank account somewhere

Is it me or am missing something.
Yes i can understand the Government bailing out the Uk banks and protecting UK savers etc. I can understand them protecting Councils who used foreign banks,but i dont see why people should expect to bail out UK savers who put their money into foreign banks, charities or not. And yes £5.7M at least! does seem rather a lot

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Why has the British Government guaranteed the deposits of an Icelandic bank anyway? The Icelandic Government has to sort out the mess with its banking system just as we have had to sort out ours. If people invest their money outside the UK they are supporting a foregn economy at the expense of the UK, yet when it goes bad they expect the Treasury to support both it and them. Why? Nobody forced you not to bank in the UK. Remember BCCI in the nineties? A bad bank that deserved to go down. If a bank has made false profits on the back of years of derivative trading then why should the taxpayer underwrite that bad business? we didn't bail out Lloyd's Insurance names in the nineties and quite right too. Does Caveat Emptor no longer apply? There will be more failures to come, but now the Government has set a precedent which less scrupulous governments will exploit. Can I look forward to seeing my tax baling out foreign nationals banking with other foreign banks? Because the Chancellor appears to be saying yes to anything now, and he was doing a steady job until now. If the Government wants to show largesse, let it bail out charities like Naomi House, but individual and even local authority finance directors have to take responsiblity for their own decisions and failings - with their jobs if necessary.

Quite right. It will be interesting to see what happens if/when the swiss banks have a bit of bother!

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Why has the British Government guaranteed the deposits of an Icelandic bank anyway? The Icelandic Government has to sort out the mess with its banking system just as we have had to sort out ours. If people invest their money outside the UK they are supporting a foregn economy at the expense of the UK, yet when it goes bad they expect the Treasury to support both it and them. Why? Nobody forced you not to bank in the UK. Remember BCCI in the nineties? A bad bank that deserved to go down. If a bank has made false profits on the back of years of derivative trading then why should the taxpayer underwrite that bad business? we didn't bail out Lloyd's Insurance names in the nineties and quite right too. Does Caveat Emptor no longer apply? There will be more failures to come, but now the Government has set a precedent which less scrupulous governments will exploit. Can I look forward to seeing my tax baling out foreign nationals banking with other foreign banks? Because the Chancellor appears to be saying yes to anything now, and he was doing a steady job until now. If the Government wants to show largesse, let it bail out charities like Naomi House, but individual and even local authority finance directors have to take responsiblity for their own decisions and failings - with their jobs if necessary.

I hope HMRC get to see the list of people with accounts in Iceland who are to be compensated. It would be a shame for the taxpayer to be compensating anyone who had not declared this off-shore investment.

Of course if a Swiss bank fails very few will come forward to claim their compensation.

AngrySotonResident wrote:

Sentient wrote:

AngrySotonResident wrote: It is unclear whether taxpayers will see any return on the investment, which was due for repayment in March next year, as the Government has guaranteed only private investments. When have taxpayers ever seen any return on council tax investments. All monies invested go back into the fat cats pockets

So your bins don't get emptied, there are no police, planning control, road maintenance etc? Don't be so melodramatic!

Planning control waste of time, Road maintenance a joke, Police under paid, waste collection reduced yet there is all this money lost in foreign accounts. Again I say when have taxpayers ever seen any return on their investment.

Whether you think the service is good, bad or indifferent is irrelevent. The service is provided, and we have to pay for it. You are being melodramatic.

I was under the impression that Icesave is the UK branch of Landsbanki, the Icelandic bank. Icesave is a UK-registered trading style, and as such savers' deposit are treated as UK assets, not overseas, therefore have to be declared to HMRC anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think the Chancellor guaranteeing all deposits is a sensible move. It does worry me that it will set a precedent, and the same will be expected if another UK bank fails. Where does it stop? However, it preserves some consumer confidence in the system, which I fear would otherwise have led to consumer panic and (cynically) criticism of the government.

One can't comment on why charities and councils have so much money in these accounts; I fully expect the money to be accounted for. Where did you expect salaries, pension contributions, invoices etc to be paid from?

If the government is going to bail out consumers, it should bail out everyone. Councils and charities are probably far more thorough in their research into their banking arrangements than the average consumer who is usually only focussed on the interest rate. Icesave had a very strong credit-rating not so long ago. I seriously doubt many people would have predicted Icesave's fate.

I don't understand any of it any more. So, sadly, I am putting my head in the sand and hoping it will all go away

so what

so what

so how much cash has this charity got in the banks they got it out of B and B in time they say
bot loos 5.7 mil in thi ice and still pleed pverty and and ask for moore use the cash you have to help people not line the big boys bank

so how much cash has this charity got in the banks they got it out of B and B in time they say
bot loos 5.7 mil in thi ice and still pleed pverty and and ask for moore use the cash you have to help people not line the big boys bank

Lewis Aubry wrote:
so how much cash has this charity got in the banks they got it out of B and B in time they say bot loos 5.7 mil in thi ice and still pleed pverty and and ask for moore use the cash you have to help people not line the big boys bank

Well, I'm sure anyone who loses £5.7m is entitled to plead poverty! If that does happen - and that's yet to be decided - then I'm sure they will be asking for more cash!

The money in the bank may be earmarked for a building project, campaign or just to ensure the long term security of the charity - or a combination of all. I don't think they're deliberately lining the banks' pockets! I believe that it's written into the constitution of the charity that they have a legal responsibility to use their money - as they see fit - but exclusively for the benefit of the charity.

Sentient wrote:

AngrySotonResident wrote:

Sentient wrote:

AngrySotonResident wrote: It is unclear whether taxpayers will see any return on the investment, which was due for repayment in March next year, as the Government has guaranteed only private investments. When have taxpayers ever seen any return on council tax investments. All monies invested go back into the fat cats pockets

So your bins don't get emptied, there are no police, planning control, road maintenance etc? Don't be so melodramatic!

Planning control waste of time, Road maintenance a joke, Police under paid, waste collection reduced yet there is all this money lost in foreign accounts. Again I say when have taxpayers ever seen any return on their investment.

Whether you think the service is good, bad or indifferent is irrelevent. The service is provided, and we have to pay for it. You are being melodramatic.

And we are paying far too much for it. Again no return from our money.

Miles Sway, they are just embarking on a £12m building project, so putting £5.7m of hard earned (raised) money to make the monthly stage payments sounded like a good idea. These Icelandic banks had good ratings until last week, 20 20 hindsight is a wonderful thing

molly moo wrote:

Miles Sway wrote: is it me or does £5.7million seem an awful lot of money for a charity to be squirreling away?

I quite agree i thought money donated was to help people not to sit in a bank account somewhere

Do you know how much it actually costs per year to run Naomi house? Don't forget that they get no government help so have to keep funds available just in case of situations like present. What would you want them to do with it, put it under a mattress?

Ian

Sentient wrote:
I was under the impression that Icesave is the UK branch of Landsbanki, the Icelandic bank. Icesave is a UK-registered trading style, and as such savers' deposit are treated as UK assets, not overseas, therefore have to be declared to HMRC anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think the Chancellor guaranteeing all deposits is a sensible move. It does worry me that it will set a precedent, and the same will be expected if another UK bank fails. Where does it stop? However, it preserves some consumer confidence in the system, which I fear would otherwise have led to consumer panic and (cynically) criticism of the government. One can't comment on why charities and councils have so much money in these accounts; I fully expect the money to be accounted for. Where did you expect salaries, pension contributions, invoices etc to be paid from? If the government is going to bail out consumers, it should bail out everyone. Councils and charities are probably far more thorough in their research into their banking arrangements than the average consumer who is usually only focussed on the interest rate. Icesave had a very strong credit-rating not so long ago. I seriously doubt many people would have predicted Icesave's fate.

Breaking BBC news is that the Government were warned about specific Icelandic banks in July and ignored the warning. Later as recently as last Monday the Government again suggested there was no problem.

Looks like the Government will be refunding everyone, including charities and Council's - but no doubt spun in some way.

The BBC mentions that some Icelandic banks operated using "passporting" which means that they were not FSA regulated.