Pensioners' loss of interest on savings

Old_Slaphead

beaujolais-nouveau wrote: »

That's interesting. France would be my first choice, if Britain becomes uninhabitable.

S'not really surprising with a name like your's.

You'll go down a treat.

beaujolais-nouveau

lukekelly wrote: »

Interest isn't some moral right. There's moral justification in receiving money for work you do. Getting paid twice though, as is happening when you receive interestt, is not a moral issue.

Some very strange reasoning here. Savings are money that you didn't spend, and you are taxed on the interest.

lukekelly wrote: »

It's pay for no work, a bonus

Even when interest rates were "good", it was only just worth having interest as recompense for not having blown the money when you first earned it.

lukekelly_2

I have old tins of beans which I haven't eaten, I don't expect to get two tins as reward. Not spending money doesn't give you a right to more money. Put a pound coin under your bed and see how much it's multiplied in a year's time if you want to be sure. The extra money -- the interest -- comes from the extra wealth created by that money being loaned to others who can use it more efficiently. Interest is thus rightly a function of the wealth created by those savings, and is entirely sensibly set at a level which (those in charge believe) will maximise economic growth.

Again, it is good that it is `only just' worthwhile, if not far less money would be spent. If saving is too rewarding domestic demand is reduced and, as currently witnessed in the Far East, you end up with an export-driven economy even more vulnerable to a global recession than countries like the USA and the UK. (Of course the level was incorrectly set in the past 10 years, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a right level, just they got it badly wrong.)

My argument is not that interest is bad. It isn't. But it is not somehow good or just either. It is good as far as it benefits society. It exists for its social utility, not because of an inalienable right to interest or the magic multiplying properties of money unspent. If, as at present, the greatest social utility is found in low interest rates then they should indeed be set low. In the same way there's no right to cheap borrowing, when needed borrowing should be expensive, and indeed should have been more expensive in recent times. These levels should be, and to some extent are, set for economic reasons, not because you deserve extra money for not spending it. The endless stream of people in all walks of life demanding things, the sense of entitlement, is one of the saddest and most regrettable elements of modern society. This is just another example.

kennyboy66_2

beaujolais-nouveau wrote: »

Unless you have osteoporosis because either a low wage (when only one adult in the family worked) or rationing meant that you did not have enough calcium in your diet when you needed it.

Or unless you are unable to breathe easily or walk any distance, because of the industrial disease you acquired (eg asbestosis) when these things were not yet understood and the causes banned.

Its laughable to try and blame osteoporosis on rationing.

Milk consumption actually rose by about 30% during UK rationing. The number is similar for both bread & vegetables.
The diet for children in 1950 was better than it is now.
They also got more Iron (about 25% more) as red meat consumption was higher (replaced by poultry).

Mary_Hartnell

Interest is the rental value of money.
Landlords pay tax on rents.
At the moment our Government is printing money and giving it away on never never terms to people and organisations who could not afford to rent any more money, having rented money against their bricks and mortar but blown it on Chelsea tractors.

As a result nobody is very keen on renting pensioners' money when the printed easy terms stuff is available.

IveSeenTheLight

beaujolais-nouveau wrote: »

You are not looking at this as if you were a pensioner. Capital is not for spending, unless on something unavoidable like replacing a boiler or having an operation to remove cataracts. If you have to spend your capital on daily living, you start to feel very anxious, if you are a pensioner because there is no way that you will ever be able to replace that lost capital.

I can assure you, I am speaking as how I will live as a pensioner.
I had a grand parent who has now passed on, but we struggled to convince her to spend some of the capital to improve her home life i.e. putting in a shower instead of a bath (she could no longer climb in and out of the bath).
In the end she went into a care home.

Capital should be for spending to improve your life.
there is no point if being so frugle you don't get the benefits of the capital and end up giving it to the care home / kids / givernment in inheritance tax

beaujolais-nouveau wrote: »

Again, you are not looking at this from the viewpoint of an elderly person. The older people become, the more they need things to continue good - elderly people lose emotional resilience, as they become more vulnerable.

Totally agree, in my experience, current pensioners have been conditioned to be so frugle (is that the right word?) that they do become a recluse partly due to reduced income.

It's important that they are encouraged / helped to keep or become more social to maintain their mental well being. If that means spending some of their captial, then I am definately in agreement it needs to be done

beaujolais-nouveau wrote: »

Pensioners can't refill their capital "cushion" so, yes, they need the economy to be run smoothly. Which, to be frank, is what the Government should do, instead of creating the conditions in which greed and recklessness are rewarded until the whole economy is brought down.

You are nieve to think that in the life of ones pension, the economy will be so smooth.
People on here talk about cycles and its true, including the economy.

Savers have been brought up with the mindset to "save for a rainy day" meaning in tougher times.
All I'm saying is that now is one of those tougher times that may require the rainy day pot to be dipped into

SingleSue

My mum has already gone into panic mode with their savings, something which is driving my father completely mad.

They have saved well for their retirement and own their home outright but mum has gone into lockdown mode...even threatening to take my dad's debit card away so he doesn't spend on treats for them!

*Their treats may be different to other peoples treats, to them a treat is a bottle of wine, or a cream cake, not a holiday or a new television.

lukekelly_2

frugle (is that the right word?)

It's frugal. Pronounced the same as frugle would be, but spelt differently. The joys of English's unpredictable spelling!

beaujolais-nouveau

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Its laughable to try and blame osteoporosis on rationing.

Milk consumption actually rose by about 30% during UK rationing. The number is similar for both bread & vegetables.
The diet for children in 1950 was better than it is now.
They also got more Iron (about 25% more) as red meat consumption was higher (replaced by poultry).

Two things are wrong about your comment. One, AIUI, only calcium taken in before the age of 6 will protect your bones in later life. After that, all the milk in the world will make very little difference.

Second, before intensive farming came in, a chicken dinner was a luxury.

Generali

beaujolais-nouveau wrote: »

Two things are wrong about your comment. One, AIUI, only calcium taken in before the age of 6 will protect your bones in later life. After that, all the milk in the world will make very little difference.

Is that really true? We do a lot of growing after the age of 6.

I thought I heard that exercise made a difference but I guess that's different to drinking milk.