Warning: Banks Are Seriously Discussing Negative Interest Rates For Normal People's Savings

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Keep the interest rates so low for years, and when another recession looms they don't have any direction to go but down.

As long as there's cash in society they can't make them negative. They also can't make the near no interest loans available to everyone because that will spark inflation. Negative interest rates at their core are designed as a last resort to keep an economy spending money. Note that these rates even apply to loans. If you buy a home for $1,000,000 over 30 years at an APR of -1% you're really paying $739,700.37 on that property. When you're getting that type of deal, it encourages people to spend on even more goods and keep everyone working.

If this happens, we will have 10-15 years left before a total collapse.

originally posted by: Aazadan
As long as there's cash in society they can't make them negative.

Mmmm hmmmm

Negative interest rates at their core are designed as a last resort to keep an economy spending money.

And if people want to save, or invest? I have a 5 year old and I'd like to be able to save towards his college. Thing is, income is down over the last 8 years and the cost of living keeps going up.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
And if people want to save, or invest? I have a 5 year old and I'd like to be able to save towards his college. Thing is, income is down over the last 8 years and the cost of living keeps going up.

Depending on the terms, I bet a secured credit line wouldn't depreciate in value.

Alternatively, leverage your money the same way banks do. Get a chunk of an asset worth some money that usually slowly appreciates, lets use gold.

Take this $100,000 in gold and use it as collateral for a loan to invest in a business (stocks, local business, whatever you like). Collect your profit off the stocks and repay the loan. Now you own some stocks worth something, and have your gold that also appreciated while it was securing your loan.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Keep the interest rates so low for years, and when another recession looms they don't have any direction to go but down.

As long as there's cash in society they can't make them negative. They also can't make the near no interest loans available to everyone because that will spark inflation. Negative interest rates at their core are designed as a last resort to keep an economy spending money. Note that these rates even apply to loans. If you buy a home for $1,000,000 over 30 years at an APR of -1% you're really paying $739,700.37 on that property. When you're getting that type of deal, it encourages people to spend on even more goods and keep everyone working.

If this happens, we will have 10-15 years left before a total collapse.

LOL

They will never do that. They want to give YOU negative interest on YOUR deposits! Not money they loan you at interest.

originally posted by: infolurker
LOL

They will never do that. They want to give YOU negative interest on YOUR deposits! Not money they loan you at interest.

It's the same thing. If interest rates go negative it will be because the fed sets the base rate negative which will impact all banks, and even credit unions.

a reply to: infolurker
this is just another way for bankers to screw the consumers and line their pockets sorry for the harsh language but it is warranted.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: infolurker
They will never do that. They want to give YOU negative interest on YOUR deposits! Not money they loan you at interest.

It's the same thing. If interest rates go negative it will be because the fed sets the base rate negative which will impact all banks, and even credit unions.

I see what infolurker is insinuating, the banks will add a "loan activation fee" or something else to offset the negative interest rate, like having to carry a minimum of $10,000 in an account, at their bank, subject to negative interest rates.

originally posted by: Flux8
Interesting that some banks (private companies) could make a tax(??) on the people in general. Think about that for a minute.

So what's next? Walmart makes a tax on the general public because it didn't meet it's quarterly earnings; reasoning people aren't buying from them and therefore are not contributing their part to sustaining our economy with Walmart jobs, and inversely contributing to homelessness and crime?

Besides,if they could convince legislatures, how would this apply to those who don't bank?

I answered how this will be done in my earlier post.

The "Owners of Capital" will simply extract the little remaining labor wages from the lower classes, by decree through the implementation of a cashless system. There will be "Legislated" mandatory purchases in the future, if revenue does not match their expectations or projections. Consumers will not have choices in the future because purchases will be made mandatory in some way. Policies structured like Obamacare is an example of how these kinds of scenarios will play out. A cashless society, dominated by "click-wrap agreements" is the easiest way to structure "forced purchases" into the larger economy.

The "owners of capital" have, at this point, run out of consumer goods that they can "strongly coerce" people to buy, in order to go to work, such as, gasoline, internet connection, car insurance, bus/subway fare, cell phones, suits/uniforms, soap, deodorant, razors, etc. We are approaching a day when they will simply make it law that you have to buy goods, in certain quantities before tax season. This arrangement will result in an instant, predictable, revenue generator for public companies, that the stock market will then feed off. People will be paying a monthly fee to keep their digital money in the bank and there won't be any alternative way to store it, without paying that monthly fee.

Behavioral "data simulations" will also be conducted on citizens by corporations and government for revenue projections. Some people will not be easily "simulated", due to high levels of inaccuracy of the collected data that exists on them. Some simple examples would be homeless people, old people that don't use credit or the internet, and low wage earners functioning solely on cash, whom use cell phones or have utility bill etc on a relatives account, which their name is not on. For example, I have a brother-in that does all of the above and couch surfs, there's no way a simulation would know anything about him because he has virtually no digital footprint.

So, what will happen when these "behavioral simulations" becomes a real part of business revenue projections, directly influencing tax revenue projections and collection methods? These people that "cannot be simulated" will be labeled criminals and put on some kind of supervised probation and forced to adapt habits that can be tracked digitally.

Note, bartering and gold/silver hoarding used as a circumvention method has been suggested before, but the IRS already has a plan and system in place to deal with it somewhat. They will tax bartering and/or unreported gold/silver holdings by an estimate. There will likely be HUGE penalties for barter or holding physical gold/silver and I will bet EVERYONE will automatically be assumed to have "bartered" some amount over the year at tax time (perhaps an estimated $500 in barter per year, that is taxed whether the person in question did any actual bartering or not). The most likely outcome though, is that one day, bartering will simply be deemed an illegal activity, I don't recall it being a named constitutional right anywhere.

All of the above also does not include fact that employers will require people working for them to hold bank accounts with negative interest rates and it won't matter if the person is paid by on 1099 or has a W-2.

Do you want to get paid in a cashless society? If so, you will need to have an open and active "negative interest" bank account.

originally posted by: boohoo
I see what infolurker is insinuating, the banks will add a "loan activation fee" or something else to offset the negative interest rate, like having to carry a minimum of $10,000 in an account, at their bank, subject to negative interest rates.

I have no doubt they'll try, but the courts won't allow it. What happens if someone doesn't have $10,000 in assets? People on disability aren't even allowed to own $10,000 in assets. If someone drops below the minimum amount they'll get fined, then they won't be able to get above the minimum level and be fined again in a never ending spiral. Eventually they'll be in debt and be ineligible for a bank in order to get money to even pay the debt. You can't give people debts that are by their nature unable to be repaid.

a reply to: stolencar18

I would have no problem putting my money in a secure place that charges a price for it, but they must SWEAR they will never lend it to anyone else and that the exact same money i've put there is ALWAYS available for me to take in ANY quantity at any time.

That's far from our current banking system.

- They make money off of ours. That's just normal they give us back a little part of it. If we don't put our money in the bank, they won't have any to lend to other people and won't make any money. Banks should be happy we still put our money there so they can make a profit on it.

- Their opening hours are ridicule (at least in Canada where I am from)

- They can decide you can't get X amount of cash at the moment you want it for any reason they deem appropriate.

- They charge us fees when in fact we should charge them for the use of our money.

Take this for example : If you put stuff in a storage locker, you have a monthly fee. But you can be assured all your stuff will be there and in the same shape it was when you've put it there. No one will use it while it's in the storage and it will be available for you anytime you need it.

This stinks to high hell.

Peace out.

originally posted by: havok
The great crashes from the early 1900's were caused by huge bank runs from the public. Every single time.

If they impose a negative interest rate, then they apparently want everyone to pull out all their cash reserves and cause a panic. That would lead to a huge market crash and the ability to implement more of their nefarious plans. S

I don't think it's a nefarious plot, but it is an example of a divergence between economic mathematical fantasy and the real world of humans. It's a terrible idea of course.

Here's how it comes about. The principle is that interest rates are so low that they can't lower them more to try to stimulate spending. So they have this great plan of making negative interest rates, and according to theoretical economic models, rational actors should say 'hey i'm losing 2% per year so why don't I go out and buy a Hummer with the money instead?"

Now, actual humans think: I didn't like my bank very much before, so WTF is going on? # you, pay me. And there is mass transfer out of banks and into nothing---and not into healthy sustainable economic growth but into panic assets because you just panicked and insulted your long-suffering citizens.

That's terrible for the economy.

I don't believe conspiracy theories that wealthy & powerful people want a bad economy---their fortunes are tied to a good one.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: havok
The great crashes from the early 1900's were caused by huge bank runs from the public. Every single time.

If they impose a negative interest rate, then they apparently want everyone to pull out all their cash reserves and cause a panic. That would lead to a huge market crash and the ability to implement more of their nefarious plans. S

I don't think it's a nefarious plot, but it is an example of a divergence between economic mathematical fantasy and the real world of humans. It's a terrible idea of course.

Here's how it comes about. The principle is that interest rates are so low that they can't lower them more to try to stimulate spending. So they have this great plan of making negative interest rates, and according to theoretical economic models, rational actors should say 'hey i'm losing 2% per year so why don't I go out and buy a Hummer with the money instead?"

Now, actual humans think: I didn't like my bank very much before, so WTF is going on? # you, pay me. And there is mass transfer out of banks and into nothing---and not into healthy sustainable economic growth but into panic assets because you just panicked and insulted your long-suffering citizens.

That's terrible for the economy.

I don't believe conspiracy theories that wealthy & powerful people want a bad economy---their fortunes are tied to a good one.

Government and big business won't let it get to that point, in regard to the general public's understanding of potential outcomes. The "Owners of Capital" will "legislate purchases", little by little, then do a surprise unload of the negative interest polices on existing accounts. Regular people won't see it coming and it will hit them like a ton of bricks, with no alternatives to fall back on.

Re-read my earlier posts in this thread.

a reply to: boohoo

There's an easy way to stimulate purchases and get away from the zero bound.

It just takes political will to do it: monetized, temporary tax cuts.

They're already indirectly printing money and giving it to banks in effect with QE and all that.

Instead give it to people: Treasury says to states: we will refund to individual customers all sales taxes for the next N months with newly issued money (not a debt but permanently created) given to us by the Fed. It's the cleanest, most effective 'stimulus package' with the least long-term damage.

a reply to: boncho

The founding fathers of the USA predicted that making the banks private would spell the end of the system and fought tooth and nail to keep them from taking the power to make money. But those who control the banks today' father were patient and made it happen much later. Anyway and now we are smack down in the middle of it and we are noticing what is going on.

They saw it coming and warned against it.

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: boohoo

There's an easy way to stimulate purchases and get away from the zero bound.

It just takes political will to do it: monetized, temporary tax cuts.

They're already indirectly printing money and giving it to banks in effect with QE and all that.

Instead give it to people: Treasury says to states: we will refund to individual customers all sales taxes for the next N months with newly issued money (not a debt but permanently created) given to us by the Fed. It's the cleanest, most effective 'stimulus package' with the least long-term damage.

Cutting sales tax does virtually nothing. Sales taxes hover around 7% and someone on a $25,000 gross income (as is the majority of the population) is only spending around $7000 per year. A sales tax is effectively giving them $490 but spreading it out among numerous purchases that trickles in slowly. An upfront sum such as the tax rebates Bush gave do more because it encourages people to go out and buy actual products. $490 over 12 months is only $41 in a month and that doesn't spur much growth.

That said, these tax rebates are basically a giant corporate giveaway. We shouldn't be looking to make economic stimulus packages because they're predicated on the idea that people need to spend rather than save and invest. Long term that does a lot of damage to the economy even though it makes the numbers for any given quarter look great.

Negative interests' for saving accounts are in fact a serious problem which may happen soon in the EU. As such, for a serious problem, a drastic solution might be needed. For example: buying state bonds from reliable states such as China or Russia. Obviously this is just a last minute option, but could be executed within reasonable time in the event of interest rates on saving accounts dropping below 0.

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: infolurker

Cashless society along with the micro chipped or barcoded human will be the installation of the Global totalitarian distopian nightmare that NWO conspiracy theorists have prophesied about for decades.

You're not denying ignorance. It's not distopian or nightmarish. It's normal. I must assume you're resisting the facts.

/sarcasm

But seriously that's how it'll occur. We'll want a cashless society. We'll want to be microchipped. They didn't force it on us. We'll want all these things as badly as we want iphones or drivers license or health insurance. It makes life easier. We want an easier life, it's like peas in a pod.

You don't force them to be slaves. You make them willing slaves. It didn't forcefully takeover, we voted for it.

Worse still, I don't think the controllers willed this. There's no vast conspiracy to uncover. It's hidden in plain sight.