500,000 pensioners pay the price for the indebted.

jay3_2

Sapphire wrote: »

Absolutely crazy policies by this 'government'. Reckless spending and getting into debt buying unnecessary fripperies (of all kinds) is what got this country into the mess it is in.

Surely there must come a point where an economy cannot grow any longer? Isn't encouraging people to spend, spend, spend also encouraging them to squander this planet's resources more and more? Shouldn't we be conserving rather than constantly creating new stuff, using up natural resources and incidentally killing off species that we share this planet with? What a horrible state of affairs...

I totally agree with your sentiments, but it would be a mistake to condemn just this government, when surely the problem lies with the underlying system. All western governments have followed this materialistic, consumerist path, and the chickens are coming home to roost.

Bogof_Babe

I suppose the theory is that buying stuff keeps the makers of such stuff in business. However that is rarely the case nowadays, given our destroyed manufacturing base.

All that borrowing has simply improved the cash flow in China.

jay3_2

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

I suppose the theory is that buying stuff keeps the makers of such stuff in business. However that is rarely the case nowadays, given our destroyed manufacturing base.

All that borrowing has simply improved the cash flow in China.

Yes, and I think the system works up to a point, as long as economies keep expanding, but I sense that a number of us are uncomfortable with the associated "fallout". As you say, our UK manufacturing industry is a good example.

Sapphire

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Really2 - perhaps I'm getting a bit dithery, but I didn't completely understand your post, or perhaps your stance.

It does, however, raise the point that the new pensioners, the Baby Boomers, who are just coming on pension now, are the spoilt post-war generation who are going to complain vociferously about things. The really old people in their 80's and 90's are more stoical, and perhaps have less energy for complaint and less access to computers/internet.

What utter rot. Many people I know in the 'post-war generation' have worked incredibly hard all their lives, and when they were young certainly did not enjoy the wealth young people enjoy these days – with their expensive ipods, computers, mobile phones, designer handbags, money gifts and loans from their parents so that they could keep up with the Jones's by getting themselves on the 'property ladder', etc, etc, etc. The people who have been 'investing' in BTL, for example, seem to be largely in their twenties, thirties and forties, with a smaller proportion doing so in their fifties...

Unfortunately, the 'me, me, me' younger generation has been spoiled by its permissive, PC 'baby boomer' parents, and brought up to expect that the world owes them a living. Now, this younger generation is repaying its 'baby boomer' parents with constant whining.

Get a grip, and stop spouting rubbish about a subject you know little about and obviously have a very skewed outlook on.

The way this 'government' is treating pensioners is disgraceful.

Radiantsoul

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

Are you still earning Radiantsoul? It makes a whole lot of difference to how you view low (i.e. almost zero) interest rates when you have no means of refilling the pot, either now or later.

I am still earning.
I can imagine that it is worrying. But I don't really see an alternative that is less painful. You could leave interest rates high and ride out a massive recession, arguing that the !!!!less and ill-prepared are getting their just deserts. But the costs of that seem to be too high.
So those with saving lose out. I can't see how they could be compensated(the government can hardly really give benefits with over £200k in savings in order compensate for loss of interest income). But the really poor elderly are those with zero savings.

RecoveringAlcoholic

I can't see how they could be compensated(the government can hardly really give benefits with over £200k in savings in order compensate for loss of interest income).

No Income Tax on savings income below say £25k?

And The Fat Cats Just Get Fatter.

Let them eat cake.

Attrib: Marie Antoinette, Maria Theresa.

Radiantsoul

RecoveringAlcoholic wrote: »

No Income Tax on savings income below say £25k?

And The Fat Cats Just Get Fatter.

Let them eat cake.

Attrib: Marie Antoinette, Maria Theresa.

I would say that is a reasonable idea. However even then you could argue that in reducing taxes for relatively well off pensionners you are less able to pay higher benefits to those without pensions.

itsnever2lateisit?

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

Are you still earning Radiantsoul? It makes a whole lot of difference to how you view low (i.e. almost zero) interest rates when you have no means of refilling the pot, either now or later.

Good point Bogof. There is much talk of 'post-code' lottery in the NHS, in this scenario it's a DOB lottery

itsnever2lateisit?

RecoveringAlcoholic wrote: »

No Income Tax on savings income below say £25k?

It's a nice idea, but have a look at ISA rates Vs ordinary instant access savings rates. The Banks/Building Societies have taken the tax advantage for themselves.

I used to work for a Private Medical Insurance Company and in the 1990's when tax relief was given on premiums we just increased the premiums by almost as much:rolleyes: , so the company got the benifit not the insured

Bogof_Babe

itsnever2lateisit? wrote: »

It's a nice idea, but have a look at ISA rates Vs ordinary instant access savings rates. The Banks/Building Societies have taken the tax advantage for themselves.

I used to work for a Private Medical Insurance Company and in the 1990's when tax relief was given on premiums we just increased the premiums by almost as much:rolleyes: , so the company got the benifit not the insured

That's shocking :eek: . How come it was never queried? You'd think the Insurance Ombudsman would have caught up with that dodgy practice.

On the subject of insurance, I heard the other day that apparently one sector of business that is doing really well despite the recession is motor insurance. Now anyone with half a brain can work out that as this is compulsory not optional to anyone who wants/needs to drive a car, they have us over a barrel re. prices don't they? I bet there is an element of price fixing in the trade, to ensure no-one gets a fair deal.

(Can't think of the word I want - what did they call the consortium of oil producers in Dallas who all worked together re. pricing?).