Darling to shaft savers!!

GeorgeHowell

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Let's not forget the political dimension here. New Labour is not keen on savers. To its dog-in-a-manger mentality they represent the 'privileged' because they have a few bob tucked away. Whereas those in debt are to them the 'needy'. They are happy to see redistribution from savers to debtors because it is part of improving 'social justice'. In addition New Labour figures that there are less votes to be had from savers than from those in debt. It's not in their political interests to do much to help savers, that's why they are happy with ultra-low interest rates, which also reduce the impact of the ruinous public debt burden that they are building up. Labour will do little for savers.

Not even a member of the party. Just reminding people who keep (justifiably) complaining on here about the dire financial and economic situation that this country is in that their interests are best saved by voting out this atrocious government. If the side effect of doing that is to wind up a few lefties in the bargain, then win-win !

GeorgeHowell

D1zzy wrote: »

But its the grey vote that now holds the power......

Certainly more power than in the past. But New Labour are so ageist that they are probably in denial about that.

Rafter

silentfox wrote: »

Are you a muppet?

Can you read?

1. Read the terms of this forum which you have breached with the above post.

2. Read the post again where I go on to suggest that I believe (as a conservative minded person) that savings should not be taxed.

What I don't believe is that now is the time to cut taxes anywhere. Spending should be cut for sure but cutting taxes and pretending that our economy doesn't need to shrink a bit, however painful that might be is just prolonging the problem.

I really don't believe that there has been a massive transfer of wealth from young to old in the last 10 years that needs addressing through tax cuts that benefit one particular group (who just happen to vote in higher numbers than any other age group)

With the basic state pension just increased by significantly more than inflation and heating bills expected to drop 10-20% next winter, I don't see pensioners suffering more than say people losing their jobs or struggling to meet their mortgage payments.

If you disagree, that is fine by me, put your arguements down, but don't call me a muppet for expressing an opinion!

R.

nilrem_2

TBH considering the comment at the foot of the opening post (re Alastair Darling) I am surprised that the mods of this site have not removed this thread by now!

I thought this forum was a respectable place to air ones views on the subject of financial matters not one to insult people.

Stavros_3

nilrem wrote: »

TBH considering the comment at the foot of the opening post (re Alastair Darling) I am surprised that the mods of this site have not removed this thread by now!

I thought this forum was a respectable place to air ones views on the subject of financial matters not one to insult people.

Jeez, this thread is Tame, you should have seen the comments slagging off Martin over the Iceland banking fiasco.

nilrem_2

Stavros wrote: »

Jeez, this thread is Tame, you should have seen the comments slagging off Martin over the Iceland banking fiasco.

Err I did I was a saver with Icesave!
Does not mean it is right to insult people though.

barny_100

Hungerdunger wrote: »

But I bet you'd be quick to complain when you needed urgent NHS treatment and found that the waiting list had doubled in size because of cuts.

No because I would use some of my income that was no longer stolen by the government to pay for private care (Already have it through work but that means I'm paying twice).

RayWolfe

barny_100 wrote: »

No because I would use some of my income that was no longer stolen by the government to pay for private care (Already have it through work but that means I'm paying twice).

So you've seen how that works in the USA, have you?
Good luck and NEVER get old, ill, or unemployed.

silentfox

Rafter wrote: »

Can you read?

1. Read the terms of this forum which you have breached with the above post.

If you disagree, that is fine by me, put your arguements down, but don't call me a muppet for expressing an opinion!

R.

Ok lets change question 1:

Are you intellectually challenged?

And I can't simply disagree with you, as your question:

"Why should savers and pensioners get special treatment"

is plain daft, I am not saying you are..just the question before you go and get upset again. There is no option to disagree with this question as the entire premise is wrong...for the simple reason savers and pensioners ARE NOT GETTING ANY ..ANY...ANY SPECIAL TREATMENT"!!

In fact they are being asked to touch their innocent toes, "Shawshank" style and unfortunately for them there is no "Redemption". They just keep crawling through the sewer of failed policies with no light at the end of the tunnel.

silentfox

nilrem wrote: »

TBH considering the comment at the foot of the opening post (re Alastair Darling)

I thought this forum was a respectable place to air ones views on the subject of financial matters not one to insult people.

You made that connection not me, look again they are simply two words often used interchangeably when a woman refers to man!!