500,000 pensioners pay the price for the indebted.

b0rker

ad9898 wrote: »

while the pensioner next door can barely afford to eat, something's gone badly wrong.

Surely there are pensioners without savings who can aford to eat? The ones with savings are surely able to afford food too no?

Am I missing something?

Oh sorry, you were using someone elses cause and being totally over dramatic in relation to it for effect in an effort to give empahsize to your own cause...

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think you may have got prudence, and poorer people mixed up. You can be prudent and earn less.

No you can be prudent and poor (like the majority of pensioners) so these 500,000 are not the prudent pensioners the majority of pensioners were prudent.

It is just that there better off counterparts are not making as much money as they did a few month back.

Really2

b0rker wrote: »

Surely there are pensioners without savings who can aford to eat? The ones with savings are surely able to afford food too no?

Am I missing something?

Oh sorry, you were using someone elses cause and being totally over dramatic in relation to it for effect in an effort to give empahsize to your own cause...

In short my point.:T

Wookster

Really2 wrote: »

If everyone was "prudent" and never got in debt there would be no such thing as interest anyway.

Wow!

That is a bold statement.

Perhaps you should reread my post: I said being prudent is not taking foolish risks, not zero risks.

abaxas

Really2 wrote: »

If everyone was "prudent" and never got in debt there would be no such thing as interest anyway.

It's a difficult one.

The problem is that traditionally, loans were used to invest. Ie people bought houses to live in, companies bought machinery etc etc. The savers allow for this to happen.

The current issue is that none of the above has happened, people didnt invest, they simply bought more crap on terms. Why should the prudent pay for something which hasn't increased out country's ability to produce wealth? They are just paying for other's worthless tat.

Really2

abaxas wrote: »

The current issue is that none of the above has happened, people didnt invest, they simply bought more crap on terms. Why should the prudent pay for something which hasn't increased out country's ability to produce wealth? They are just paying for other's worthless tat.

I would of thought it was more to do with giving 30% of your mortgage book to low credit rated people or the unenployed and handing them 125%+ the valuation of the property they were puchasing.

Then selling that debt on world wide.

But that may be just me.

Really2

Wookster wrote: »

Wow!

That is a bold statement.

Perhaps you should reread my post: I said being prudent is not taking foolish risks, not zero risks.

But we are talking about a generation that mostly did not take out loans etc so zero risk.;)

Look I agree with what most of you say but fighting the cause for 500,000 pensioners that are comparatively well off compared to the rest of pensioners is perhaps the wrong thing to do.

Perhaps a post saying "I am P!ssed off I am not earning any interest on my saved money" may well have been a more appropriate thread.

I am sure the pensioners can handle themselves most of them have been trough wars.
They don't need the people on here to sort of push their problem to cover what is actually upsetting them.;)

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

I am sure the pensioners can handle themselves most of them have been trough wars.
They don't need the people on here to sort of push their problem to cover what is actually upsetting them.;)

Seems the voice of all the OAP's in the country has spoken.

chucky

Wookster wrote: »

Pensions are the biggest ponzi there is!

why!? what a sweeping generalisation and what a silly thing to say.

pensions are an excellent vehicle for those that suits their personal circumstances and expectations.

lostinrates

Hmm. 2009-65+1944...right? So yes, this years crop of new pensioners saw some of the war, and the tough times after wards. and the good and bad times since. But they also were around for right to buy, the massive increase in property ownership.

I don't really get the point.

I hope to reach pensionable age, and I hope to be able to have savings to live off. Doesn't that make me a sort of interested party? It might not be pressing, but it might set a precident.