Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem
Maybe this scheme ought to be means tested in some way but I have no problem with people who've worked hard and managed to save some money doing so and getting slightly better rates. I can't imagine there are that many pensioners who'll be investing £20k a year for very long. That sum might represent someone's entire savings after a lifetime in work and money which they rely upon to supplement the basic state pension. Would it be better/cheaper if they decided to spend it on cars and holidays then claim additional support or free social care?
|
Difficult to means test as the more wealthy will be the only ones who'd have the cash.
There appear to be a fair amount of pensioners wanting to invest, and there's a nice bolus of people retiring who'll have considerable assets thanks to house price inflation.
Try justifying this to all of the people who are going to be paying twice for retirees and near-retirees' pensions, via taxes and rents on buy to let investments. Thanks to this they also get to subsidise the interest rates their landlords receive on their savings, in between paying them rent, paying taxes for their state pension, and paying for the various tax reliefs they get as a landlord.
What a great deal.
The last sentence is a ridiculous straw man. This isn't a case of either they get subsidised savings rates or they spend all their money on cars and holidays then claim off the taxpayer.
I'm not sure why any small-c conservative would support this policy. It is profoundly not conservative, it's corrupt and it's socialism for a client group.
The conservative solution would be for the government and the BoE to rebalance between savings and borrowing rates via monetary policy rather than constant subsidy. Given our present rate of inflation current savings rates are actually quite appropriate; the government shouldn't be borrowing money at 4% when it could be paying 0.6% to buy votes.