Young man need's advice

colsten

citricsquid wrote: »

An entrepreneur is someone who does things. What are you doing?

He is probably at Uni, studying for a degree in behavioural psychology. Current project: how to fool a bunch of people on an internet forum.

Nocto

ViolaLass wrote: »

If it's just about raising money, why not let everyone in? Doesn't limiting it to pensioners mean it could be classed as a benefit?

Maybe I’m being cynical, but selling an investment bond and only allowing a certain group of people to buy it, seems to me like just good marketing. They are only selling a limited number so they don’t need to make them available to everyone. By making pensioners feel lucky to be allowed to buy these bonds, they have created a frenzy of interest (pardon the pun!) and pretty much guaranteed that they sell out.

I’m sure a lot of people are just rushing to buy these bonds so they don’t feel that they have somehow missed out. There are plenty of other good investments out there, they just don’t make the news headlines, and I doubt this one would if it had just been another bond issue.

Also, and now being very cynical, encouraging pensioners to tie up their cash in investments rather than spending it, seams like a very good way of raising more in inheritance tax!

Anyway, we seem to have become a little sidetracked… I wonder what happened to YoungGuy - do you think he’s a millionaire yet?!!!!!!:D

TheTracker

Nocto wrote: »

Interesting concept.

Selling some bonds paying a higher rate of interest = a ‘state benefit’.

The government selling some higher interest bonds is not a ‘benefit’, it’s just a way of raising some cash by targeting a group of people who have it, and then persuading them to part with it.

It's a clever way for the gov to give pensioners £300m. They could have borrowed the money £300m cheaper. You and I pay for Senior Citizen's juicy rate with our taxes.

Onawingandaprayer

TheTracker wrote: »

It's a clever way for the gov to give pensioners £300m. They could have borrowed the money £300m cheaper. You and I pay for Senior Citizen's juicy rate with our taxes.

Wow, loads of ugly hate here, to coin a phrase

gadgetmind

citricsquid wrote: »

I can work from anywhere in the world thanks to the internet

The last four people I have hired are in Australia, Germany, China and the Czech Republic. They all work from home and all earn several times the UK average wage.

I've hired them because they are experts in their field and no way could I find these skills in the UK,

It's all about skills and drive.

masonic

TheTracker wrote: »

It's a clever way for the gov to give pensioners £300m. They could have borrowed the money £300m cheaper. You and I pay for Senior Citizen's juicy rate with our taxes.

Roughly equivalent to putting up the state pension by about 50p a week. It's not just those of working age who won't be able to benefit from this - the majority of pensioners won't either. If everyone who applies wants to put in the full £10k, the scheme will close with under 10% of pensioners having benefited.

Nocto

TheTracker wrote: »

It's a clever way for the gov to give pensioners £300m. They could have borrowed the money £300m cheaper. You and I pay for Senior Citizen's juicy rate with our taxes.

I think I’m correct in saying that the UK can borrow on the open bond market at far lower rates than any of those currently offered by NS&I. (Anyone, please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong - trying to get me head around gilt yields & coupon rates!)

Does that mean that all NS&I products are a ‘state benefit’?

I see they offer children’s bonds paying 2.5% tax free (I note that the pensioner bonds are not tax free), is this a government handout? Or is it just an investment product to encourage us to save?

masonic

Nocto wrote: »

I think I’m correct in saying that the UK can borrow on the open bond market at far lower rates than any of those currently offered by NS&I. (Anyone, please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong - trying to get me head around gilt yields & coupon rates!)

Not quite sure you can say that unless you are looking at the coupon of recently issued gilts vs NS&I rates available at that time. The fact that there is a secondary market does not affect the rate the Government is paying on the debt.

ViolaLass

Nocto wrote: »

I see they offer children’s bonds paying 2.5% tax free (I note that the pensioner bonds are not tax free), is this a government handout? Or is it just an investment product to encourage us to save?

Can't it be both?

Eco_Miser

atush wrote: »

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

No, they are not. They are a standard amount, which will be more than some recipients actually need, and less than others think they need.

Telling those who underspend that they've got to return the surplus, will in general encourage them to spend more, as it does with departmental budgets, rather than return it,

So instead of saving, and one day getting off benefits, as the OP wishes to do, they'll go through life on invalidity benefit, with no spare money for emergencies - so even more reliant on the taxpayer.

atush wrote: »

If he is getting to much, someone might be getting too little.

logical fallacy: the two things are not related.

atush wrote: »

I'd rather it go there. Even to an immigrant who works hard but might not earn enough.

Why wouldn't a hard-working immigrant be earning enough? Too low a pay rate? So why should the tax-payers subsidise a skin-flint employer?