Pensioner bonds extended

N1AK

Sapphire wrote: »

It is you who cannot construct a valid argument – by lumping all pensioners together instead of stating that you are referring to wealthy pensioners, if that is indeed what you are doing.

The fact you wouldn't know a valid argument if it collided with your face doesn't mean they don't exist.

How many of the poorest pensioners do you think have £10k, or £20k, of available cash to invest at short notice? Even if you're naive enough to think it's a lot, the benefit per bond purchaser is something like £150 pa. Why wouldn't it be better to give £1,000 to each of the poorest 350,000 pensioners, instead of giving most of the £350 million to the wealthiest pensioners? Aside from because you've already thrown yourself fully behind a moronic policy, and now incorrectly feel it reflects less badly on you to doggedly refuse to change position, than admit your error.

I'll ask AGAIN, can you give an example of anything on here suggesting poorer pensioners don't deserve help, or that all pensioners are incredibly wealthy? You didn't last time I asked, but maybe it just takes repeating things slowly to get through to you.

Loughton_Monkey

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Yes. I shall blame my Conservative county council for passing on the funding cuts from the Conservative government to the poorest and most vulnerable people in society, again.

Many of the recipients of this boomer welfare train have no need of it. Why are we giving winter housing allowances, state funded savings vehicles, and free bus passes to people with a detached modern double glazed house and two cars in the driveway? Oh it's because the government wants to bribe them to put them back in power.

It's morally wrong it's financially wrong and it's just obscenely bloody unfair. The Tories are kicking disabled people out of council houses for having a spare box room, and telling people with emphysema who can't walk that their benefits are being stopped as they should be working. Meanwhile they are handing out wads of non means tested cash to people who don't even slightly need it.

A welcome and well constructed post.

In a perverse way, I do like my daily dose of complete emotional claptrap. Often it comes from the Nanny State BBC news, and frequently from posters here.

I would just love to understand your complete definition of 'fairness' in your own world. Particularly in relation to children (which, after all, are items that everyone has a free choice to bring into this world in limitless numbers). If you choose to have 1, 2, 4, or 8 children, I find it unfair in the extreme if I am ureasonably called upon, as a taxpayer, to shell out huge amounts in child tax credits, subsidised/free childcare, extra housing benefit.....

Why do you not complain vehemently about things like the 2012 Olympics, Crossrail, HS2, Arts Funding etc., the vast majority of so-called 'poor and vulnerable' people in your sphere of sympathy not 'needing' or being able to enjoy the benefits of these things?

As to the linkage between double glazing and the need to use a bus for free, that one escapes me completely. One fact about free bus passes is that they cost very little for people with 2 cars because they are most unlikely to use it.