Young man need's advice

Eco_Miser

mollycat wrote: »

Pensions paid to senior citizens, have generally been earned over a lifetime of work,

They may have been, or they may have been earned over a lifetime of signing on.

Not even a lifetime, just thirty years.

Nocto

ViolaLass wrote: »

Can't it be both?

No, I don’t think it can!

A ‘state benefit’ is money paid to those who are unemployed or unable to work, a top up for those on low income, child benefit, etc.

ViolaLass

Nocto wrote: »

No, I don’t think it can!

A ‘state benefit’ is money paid to those who are unemployed or unable to work, a top up for those on low income, child benefit, etc.

So it's not a benefit because the recipients might not need it?

masonic

Nocto wrote: »

No, I don’t think it can!

A ‘state benefit’ is money paid to those who are unemployed or unable to work, a top up for those on low income, child benefit, etc.

The question was whether it was a "Government handout" or "an investment product to encourage us to save". It can be both.

IMHO it is best described as a bribe to win votes in the general election in a few months time. Why else launch these so close to the end of Parliament?

atush

Eco_Miser wrote: »

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.
logical fallacy: the two things are not related.

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?

I am not telling anything to those that underspend, I am saying if they get more than they need they are getting too much. Period. that is my opinion and I am allowed it. I can see it could encourage spending, just as it is encouraging gambling to the OP?

As for subsidising skinflint employers, too many dont follow the rules that are currently in force by paying immigrants off book at less than the MW, and others who are on zero hours contracts and can't work enough hours to live on. I am saying I dont want to pay for this, but i'd rather that than pay the OP enough to gamble with? As that is what he is proposing to do?

Porcupine

atush, so far as we know the OP is ill - a doctor agrees with them, so what do we know different?

The benefit they receive is their 'salary' they receive because they cannot work. It's a low amount and means living in poverty compared with people who have the health to have good jobs, but it's something.

Imagine if your salary didn't allow you to save, no matter how much you cut back on your expenditure. Imagine if your bank balance was automatically reduced to zero at the end of the month. Not only would you be unable to afford big ticket items (like a car, which might help you get around if you had mobility problems), you'd have no means of getting yourself out of the grinding poverty you were in. For example, you wouldn't be able to move somewhere there was work you were able to do, because you couldn't afford a rental deposit.

The OP is dreaming a way out of their situation. I don't blame them. A lot of people here are dreaming of retiring at 55 and it's no different. Some of those people are dreaming of having a BTL empire to fund their retirement without knowing anything about letting houses, and the OP is dreaming about making pots of money with investments. There's nothing wrong with dreaming, it just needs a little tempering with reality.

So, OP, carry on dreaming. But rather than get-rich-quick shares, think about what constructive ways you could improve your life, and practical means to get there from here.

Nocto

masonic wrote: »

The question was whether it was a "Government handout" or "an investment product to encourage us to save". It can be both.

IMHO it is best described as a bribe to win votes in the general election in a few months time. Why else launch these so close to the end of Parliament?

Actually - fair point…

What I’m trying to say is that just because some pensioners will benefit from these bonds if they choose to invest, it doesn’t make the bonds part of the welfare system, any more than an ISA is.

I think that referring to them as “The Pensioner Bonds state benefit” is incorrect.

I don’t know if the OP was genuine or not, but he’s certainly created a lively discussion!:D

Eco_Miser

atush wrote: »

I am not telling anything to those that underspend,

Well, yes you are, see next quote

atush wrote: »

I am saying if they get more than they need they are getting too much. Period.

You are also saying that if they economise and actually manage to save a little, then they are doing wrong and should be punished by having their payments reduced.

atush wrote: »

that is my opinion and I am allowed it.

Yes, you are allowed it, as I am allowed mine, so I don't know why you are mentioning that.