The 'Emergency' Budget

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I assumed you thought it was no longer in force

A most dangerous assumption to have made, as at my age, my knowledge base surpasses that of Yoda...

 

[northwichcat]

Received an email from my bank yesterday saying that the FSCS limit is being lowered to £75,000 from next year. Did Osborne slip that through in the budget without the media picking up on it?

 

[philjo]

I think the FSCS limit is the same across the EU but is set in Euros. so the adjustment is so bring it in line with the current £/euro exchange rate.

 

[DarloRich]

to have £75,000 in the bank must be nice

Impact on me: zero. Impact on almost everyone I know: zero. Impact of benefit cuts............

 

[northwichcat]

to have £75,000 in the bank must be nice

Impact on me: zero. Impact on almost everyone I know: zero. Impact of benefit cuts............

Unless a financial institution collapses and the government doesn't bail them out (as they did with the big banks and Northern Rock) it doesn't affect anyone. However, if it does happen it's something most likely to affect Conservative supporters and the government seems to have let it go through quietly.

 

[DarloRich]

Unless a financial institution collapses and the government doesn't bail them out (as they did with the big banks and Northern Rock) it doesn't affect anyone. However, if it does happen it's something most likely to affect Conservative supporters and the government seems to have let it go through quietly.

agreed - but they have only aligned it with the euro level and may not have had a choice.

Oh hang on: those pesky eurocrats are at it again

 

[radamfi]

to have £75,000 in the bank must be nice

Impact on me: zero. Impact on almost everyone I know: zero. Impact of benefit cuts............

Lots of people have assets of over £75,000 but usually they don't put it on deposit because most people tie up the cash in the home they live in or invest in shares or property. Leaving it in the bank is likely to grow slower than inflation. Even if you do have over that much in cash, maybe because you need it for a house deposit or you think the stock market will go down in the short term, you can split your cash across several institutions to ensure you have no more than £75,000 in one place.

 

[Jonny]

Lots of people have assets of over £75,000 but usually they don't put it on deposit because most people tie up the cash in the home they live in or invest in shares or property. Leaving it in the bank is likely to grow slower than inflation. Even if you do have over that much in cash, maybe because you need it for a house deposit or you think the stock market will go down in the short term, you can split your cash across several institutions to ensure you have no more than £75,000 in one place.

That's the best way - and also if it is a joint account, that £75,000 is per person (see: http://www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/questions-and-answers/qas-about-deposits/ and scroll down to Q5, but it has the old amount). The trick, though, is to make sure that the institutions are genuinely separate (see Q4).

 

[northwichcat]

agreed - but they have only aligned it with the euro level and may not have had a choice.

Oh hang on: those pesky eurocrats are at it again

Just found the exact wording:

Directive 2009/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (8) introduced a fixed coverage level of EUR 100 000, which has put some Member States in the situation of having to lower their coverage level, with risks of undermining depositor confidence. While harmonisation is essential in order to secure the level playing field and financial stability in the internal market, risks of undermining depositor confidence should be taken into account. Therefore, Member States should be able to apply a higher coverage level if they provided for a coverage level that was higher than the harmonised level before the application of Directive 2009/14/EC. Such higher coverage level should be limited in time and in scope and the Member States concerned should adjust the target level and contributions paid to their DGSs proportionately. Given that it is not possible to adjust the target level if the coverage level is unlimited, it is appropriate to limit the option to Member States which on 1 January 2008 applied a coverage level within a range of between EUR 100 000 and EUR 300 000. In order to limit the impact of diverging coverage levels, and taking into account that the Commission will review the implementation of this Directive by 31 December 2018, it is appropriate to allow for this option until that date.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/UK/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0049

So not only can they blame the EU but also blame Labour for having a limit set at £35,000 on 1st January 2008 meaning the UK wasn't eligible to apply for the higher level up to EUR 300,000.

 

[DarloRich]

Lots of people have assets of over £75,000 but usually they don't put it on deposit because most people tie up the cash in the home they live in or invest in shares or property. Leaving it in the bank is likely to grow slower than inflation. Even if you do have over that much in cash, maybe because you need it for a house deposit or you think the stock market will go down in the short term, you can split your cash across several institutions to ensure you have no more than £75,000 in one place.

clearly you don't put all your money in one place, if only to maximise earning potential

In any event, I still know few people with assets over £75k, even allowing for the rise in house prices. One day perhaps.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So not only can they blame the EU but also blame Labour for having a limit set at £35,000 on 1st January 2008 meaning the UK wasn't eligible to apply for the higher level up to EUR 300,000.

Good day all round for the Tory party then. Blame the EU AND Labour. Winner!