Pensioner bonds extended

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.....So, good idea? Or just another election bribe to pensioners?.....

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.......The definition of bribery is: Bribery is an act of giving money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient, where the gift is of a dishonest nature....

I am happy to consider the granting of 2.8%/4% interest rates as a 'gift'.

I am happy to consider that the 'gift' may (or may not) alter the behaviour of us pensioners [i.e. throw our money in]. It may even be that as a result, we change our vote from Liberal to Conservative.

Where, I think, you have more explaining to do is why you think this 'gift' is of a dishonest nature. Unless you report it to the police immediately, I fear they will take no action.

.string.

antrobus wrote: »

You so obviously don't understand.:)

If a political party announces a decision that costs money and I don't approve of it, it's a bribe.

If a political party announces a decision that costs money and I do approve of it, it's a policy.

Yup - I liked that.:D

From my viewpoint it's not a bribe it's a policy. So the "Young" think the old fogies are leaching away their money?

Good - the young have leached my money for years - it's pay-back time. :T

Since my wife and I qualify for the old fogie bonds, we have already bought some. We were fortunate because they came just at a time when some old bonds ran out so we had the cash to do it. Others would not be so lucky and the 3 month extension will come in handy for them.

A couple of remarks for all those miserable gits who don't like the idea of old fogies having a good retirement;

People save money so they have a bit extra over and above their pensions. Those savings earn very little interest at the moment so additional help for all that supposedly laudable thrift is welcome.

Also, for the socialistically minded, don't forget that the interest is not tax free so the Chancellor gets back an amount which has been decided is the proper amount to tax people at the relevant tax bands.


A thought - the Conservatives keep bringing up the idea that Inheritance should be slashed - is that a bribe or a policy for those who would benefit from it (the so-called "Young people")?

stator

.string. wrote: »

A thought - the Conservatives keep bringing up the idea that Inheritance should be slashed - is that a bribe or a policy for those who would benefit from it (the so-called "Young people")?

A toff bribe. Young people don't usually benefit from inheritance. Most of the time it's middle aged people who don't even need the money.

Sapphire

I do think the pensioner bonds are a good idea. I am not a pensioner, but I do see pensioners around me who are in no way affluent and have been very badly affected by low interest rates. For people such as this they are a very good idea. The majority of elderly people – most of whom have led productive lives, working for 40 to 50 years – now have enough to put up with, without having to worry about their finances and even live in poverty when they retire.

There are many pensioners who do not have the fabulous income that many younger people like to imagine they do because it is convenient for them to believe this. I thoroughly support measures to help them.

the_flying_pig

Sapphire wrote: »

I do think the pensioner bonds are a good idea. I am not a pensioner, but I do see pensioners around me who are in no way affluent and have been very badly affected by low interest rates. For people such as this they are a very good idea. The majority of elderly people – most of whom have led productive lives, working for 40 to 50 years – now have enough to put up with, without having to worry about their finances and even live in poverty when they retire.

There are many pensioners who do not have the fabulous income that many younger people like to imagine they do because it is convenient for them to believe this. I thoroughly support measures to help them.

'i know some pensioners who aren't well off' => 'all pensioners should have discriminatory access to state subsidised savings products'

There's a *certain* logic at work there, but...

Sapphire

Your response is difficult to figure out. However, if today's families with children, for example, are massively subsidised by taxpayers (and to a far greater extent than the pensioners and their parents were), why should pensioners who need to increase their incomes to live relatively comfortable lives not be helped? (I am not talking about pensioners with huge pensions, but those who do not.) Many pensioners have contributed massively to society during their lives, as well as bringing up children, and continuing to subsidise them even as adults (I see this happening around me a lot). Many also continue to pay taxes, which contribute to society. I see there is a lot of envy out there…

It's not even as though the pensioner bonds pay a huge amount of interest, and the interest is taxed, I believe.

As I said, I thoroughly support measures to help the many pensioners who are having a tough time (in various ways, and not just when it comes to their finances).

'i know some pensioners who aren't well off' => 'all pensioners should have discriminatory access to state subsidised savings products'

There's a *certain* logic at work there, but...

michaels

Are real interest rates historically low or is the problem actually money illusion. Interest rates at 6% and inflation at 5% and pensioners think they are living comfortably but in fact they are just living off deflating capital. Rates at 1.5% and inflation at 0.5% and they won't touch the capital and thus feel they have no money to live off...

N1AK

purch wrote: »

[*]In the grand scheme of things, compared to the huge amount of debt the country has and the cost of servicing it, these Bonds are a tiny drop in the ocean.

They're going to cost the treasury £350 million, which is considerably more than was saved by the benefit cap or by the bedroom tax.

It's £350 million being handed to people for being rich and old, at the same time the conservatives are determined to punish the young and/or poor while hiding behind 'austerity'. The only group exempted from austerity are pensioners, and the only reason is because the conservatives want their vote.

I have a cracking local conservative MP who is pleasantly moderate given how conservative the constituency is. I was intending to vote for him even though I've lost all faith in the conservative party, but I actually wrote to him yesterday to say that as a vote for him is unfortunately a vote for another conservative government and I cannot in good conscience vote for that.

N1AK

Sapphire wrote: »

There are many pensioners who do not have the fabulous income that many younger people like to imagine they do because it is convenient for them to believe this.

Then help them, rather than blindly supporting the government handing £350 million to already well off people because you think anything pro-pensioner is good.

For the first time in history pensioners are wealthier than non-pensioners on average. That in itself is nothing to complain about, but the fact that the government is continuing to throw money to them to buy their votes, when there are other groups in society who desperately need help is.

Can you refer to a single post on here suggesting that ALL pensioners are rich, or that any measure to help poorer pensioners are bad? I doubt it; you're just constructing a straw-man to attack because you can't construct a valid counter-argument to the points actually being made.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Right, so we rename policies as bribes.

Now, what do we call these things were seeing in the media today, called election bribes?

And why do you always have to have these pointless semantics arguments?

A bribe is usually seen as something put forward (not always a policy) which may influence how voters vote at an election. In most cases, these involve incentives, such as tax cuts for certain people, or in this case, higher levels of interest for a specific group.

The definition of bribery is: Bribery is an act of giving money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient, where the gift is of a dishonest nature.

So we can't simply state every policy by every party is a bribe.

oh the travails of sarcasm and irony

I genuinely thought you were actually joking as the alternative seemed too ............

I will refrain from pointless semantic arguments but I don't base my views on the medias definitions of 'election bribes'