Young man need's advice

TheTracker

Onawingandaprayer wrote: »

Sorry? You'll have to run that by me again.

Sure. The Pensioner Bonds state benefit will cost the tax payer £300m/year by most estimates. This money is for pensioners do do as they wish with, perhaps and indeed probably they will reinvest the benefit they receive. Yet in this thread you have said, in relation to the OP considering investing surplus disability benefits "the thought of you investing some of your state benefits in the stock market is ... a bit offensive.". I simply wondered how you reconcile what to me seem more similar than dissimilar use cases.

mollycat

TheTracker wrote: »

I'm interested to hear whether and how you (and all other "benefits scrounger" respondents) may reconcile this position with the various popular "Pensioner Bonds" threads now running. As far as I can ascertain such bonds are a non means tested state benefit manifested by recipients making investments. Why would it be OK for this new benefit to be provided to pensioners wealthy enough to apply (fund), but yet not OK for a recipient of a disability benefit to save any surplus wisely? In other words is there a moral distinction between being given free money because you invested (pensioners), and allowing benefits to be invested (OP), even if they are perhaps quantitatively similar amounts?

If you're happy to pay tax to fund someone who chooses a non-working, benefits fuelled lifestyle to invest the "surplus", fine; I'm not.

Benefits are supposed to be a safety net to provide the essentials in times of hardship. I don't think identifying and investing in a series of "treble baggers" to fund a £200K house fits that criteria.

Pensions paid to senior citizens, (as you should have called them), have generally been earned over a lifetime of work, as that's what that generation of person had to do, and as such can be spent/invested/ squandered as per the person's freewill.

That in simplistic terms, (as I can't be bothered putting more effort into answering something so banal), to me is the distinction.

TheTracker

mollycat wrote: »

Pensions paid to senior citizens, (as you should have called them), have generally been earned over a lifetime of work, as that's what that generation of person had to do, and as such can be spent/invested/ squandered as per the person's freewill.

I didn't realize the term pensioner may have been pejorative. I assumed it was a safe leap to call those in receipt of Pensioner Bonds pensioners. No offense intended, senior citizen.

Nor am I questioning state pension benefits here. I'm questioning the reader's attitude to this new benefit versus the opinions expressed against toward a recipient of the disability living allowance having a few quid spare to save.

Are you of the opinion this new benefit was earned over a lifetime of work?

mollycat

TheTracker wrote: »

I didn't realize the term pensioner may have been pejorative. I assumed it was a safe leap to call those in receipt of Pensioner Bonds pensioners. No offense intended, senior citizen.

Nor am I questioning state pension benefits here. I'm questioning the reader's attitude to this new benefit versus the opinions expressed against toward a recipient of the disability living allowance having a few quid spare to save.

Are you of the opinion this new benefit was earned over a lifetime of work?

Hi Tracker, no offence taken.

I think it's tenuous at best to compare the benefit of a generous interest rate for a limited amount of money, (Pensioner Bonds) to the benefit of a sum of money, (which allows a surplus according to the OP), paid each week for a timeframe apparantly dictated by the OP's unwillingness to be fit for work. (Sickness Benefit).

I appreciate this may not be the exact point you are making, but to me this this is the gist of the question you asked.

Archi_Bald

TheTracker wrote: »

I'm interested to hear whether and how you (and all other "benefits scrounger" respondents) may reconcile this position with the various popular "Pensioner Bonds" threads now running.

The pensioners do not invest money they have been given by the state (like our troll said he would like to). The pensioners are lending the state, who needs to borrow for a number of reasons, £10bn of their own money. The young guy you seem to want to defend couldn't lend the government a penny as he claims he is unable to work. Apples and pears.

ViolaLass

Archi_Bald wrote: »

The pensioners do not invest money they have been given by the state (like our troll said he would like to). The pensioners are lending the state, who needs to borrow for a number of reasons, £10bn of their own money. which they may have been given by the state The young guy you seem to want to defend couldn't lend the government a penny as he claims he is unable to work. yes he could, he has spare money from his benefits Apples and pears.

Not saying I agree with his not feeling like working but is it so bad that the OP has a surplus?

Onawingandaprayer

TheTracker wrote: »

such bonds are a non means tested state benefit

Just trying to get my head around the idea of means-testing Pensioner Bonds, which you seem to be advocating.

If they were means-tested, presumably the only people eligible to invest in them would be those that couldn't afford to...

atush

ViolaLass wrote: »

Not saying I agree with his not feeling like working but is it so bad that the OP has a surplus?

Yeah, I think it is bad. Because benefits are meant to be a minimum to survive, not a lifestyle choice.

If he is getting to much, someone might be getting too little. I'd rather it go there. Even to an immigrant who works hard but might not earn enough.

colsten

Archi_Bald wrote: »

The young guy you seem to want to defend couldn't lend the government a penny as he claims he is unable to work

But he could return the money he doesn't need, so it can be given to someone who actually needs it?

colsten

TheTracker wrote: »

Sure. The Pensioner Bonds state benefit will cost the tax payer £300m/year by most estimates.

A couple of questions:

1. Leaving aside whether these 'most estimates' have any foundation: I might have missed your complaints about the cost of ISAs to the tax payer. As it is considerable more than £300m a year, has been a cost to the tax payer for years, and is set to continue to cost the tax payer billions in years to come, shouldn't ISAs been abdandonned? Or are they ok as you can benefit from them yourself?
   
   
2. Who says people putting money into Pensioner Bonds are not tax payers? And/or were tax payers for decades?

NB. I am not 65+, not even close.