Premium Bonds - NUMBER 10 Petition

isofa

sash1990 wrote: »

A basic rule in rewards/prizes is the 'Carrot on a stick'. If the government increase prizes then the number of bond-holders will increase. This will not just benefit the saver but the treasury/government/country.

Following on from opinions4u above, who is spot on - in response to sash's quote above: this is exactly what the government don't want you to do, which is why they dropped rates on Northern Rock products, withdrew some accounts, and obviously dropped PB rates, to dissuade new money coming into them.

They want you to spend more, or at least pump it back into the commercial banking sector to shore it up, so they don't have to bail out any more failing banks.

gozomark

the OP says "their chances of winning should be increased greatly" which isn't necessarily the same as increasing the payout rate, but could be achieved by reducing the number of high value prices, and have alot more low value prizes - maybe thats what is meant by the petition ?

tradetime

sash1990 wrote: »

Recession or not, I feel that we do not get enough out of Premium Bonds - so I do think it is relevant.

The logical solution to that, without petitions is........Don't buy them. When I feel I am not getting value for money from a product I don't buy it, the fact that you do means, perhaps you do feel you are getting value for your money, you just want more?

sash1990 wrote: »

A basic rule in rewards/prizes is the 'Carrot on a stick'. If the government increase prizes then the number of bond-holders will increase. This will not just benefit the saver but the treasury/government/country.

Equally logically, the government clearly feels they are getting sufficient funds from the mix of product offerings they have as it is, wanting more for less really isn't a good sales pitch, but good luck with it anyway.
As to the number of bond holders increasing, all that achieves is moves money from one part of the economy to another, currently hardly a compelling reason to change anything from a government perspective..

cocktail

in fact reducing the potential wins in premium bonds can theoratically get people pulling money out and investing or saving or spending elsewhere.

Hungerdunger

sash1990 wrote: »

A basic rule in rewards/prizes is the 'Carrot on a stick'. If the government increase prizes then the number of bond-holders will increase. This will not just benefit the saver but the treasury/government/country.

... except that if the number of bond holders increases, your personal chances of winning will reduce so you'll be back to square one.

jamesd

The prize fund should be cut to discourage people, particularly pensioners, from wasting their money in Premium Bonds when four times the return is available from ordinary term deposit savings accounts, with a 100% capital guarantee from the government for more than the Premium Bond limit.

Still, the government did listen to the "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to increase the number of prizes in premium bonds" part by introducing £25 prizes. Well done, it's encouraged people to stick with a losing way of using money, without increasing the payout percentage at all.

StarRover

staffie1 wrote: »

I agree - you talk sense. But you're not the Prime Minister unfortunately

In fact, this would disbar you from being Prime Minister.

nrsql

If you don't think you get enough return from the product you should withdraw your money.
If I was in control of the product and received a petition like this I would think that all these people want the rate higher but presumably think it is high enough to keep investing - maybe I should reduce the rate!

If you want to protest then withdraw your money don't waste time with a petition - unless it is accompanied by a withdrawal.
An agreement from everyone signing to withdraw a week before the petition is delivered might have an effect.

Stompa

These number 10 petitions are generally pretty daft. This particular one seems stupider than most!

Fella

Unfortunately Gordon Brown does not want you to save, does everything in his power to put you off saving, & finally punishes you if you do save.

Since he is utterly incompetent he is 100% dependent on endless crazy spending to attempt to balance the books.

Cue slashed interest rates, pointless cuts in VAT, £2K of taxpayers money per traded-in banger etc etc etc.

He's hoping the spending will continue long enough to get him voted in (not voted back in of course - no-one has ever voted for him to be leader nor will they). Just hope there's something left of the country when he's finally ousted.