Osborne's 'Pensioner bonds' - bribing OAPs with everyone else's money

[Kursk]

Mums and Dads have made big sacrifices for us. A little bit of interest for them is nothing in the grand scheme of things. There are so many snouts in the public trough, this one is a curious choice to get worked up about.

Originally Posted by Kursk

Mums and Dads have made big sacrifices for us. A little bit of interest for them is nothing in the grand scheme of things. There are so many snouts in the public trough, this one is a curious choice to get worked up about.

I think the issue is that whilst so many other benefits, services and sectors are seeing cuts one sector of the population is not only immune from such cuts but are getting more spending instead. Why should reducing the deficit, which the Conservatives tell us is a necessity, fall disproportionately on certain sectors whilst others are less affected?

It just seems a bit odd for the Conservatives to be saying how important it is to control spending and then doing this for the biggest voting group.

Anyway it's ultimately the fault of young people for not voting. Russell Brand telling people not to vote isn't helping things either. The Government is elected by those who vote.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Damien

The Government is elected by those who vote.

Ironically it's also elected by those who don't vote.

[richard s]

A monetary voting ploy by the the Blue Heads to gain more Grey Heads votes. Nothing against the Grey Heads making a few extra quid though.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by richard s

A monetary voting ploy by the the Blue Heads to gain more Grey Heads votes. Nothing against the Grey Heads making a few extra quid though.

That's the way l see it as well Richard.

[heero_yuy]

Well they are the reliable Tory vote unlike Labour's missing students.

Oh the irony

Labour must have forgotten they began the policy of individual electoral registration while they were in government and still support it in principle,

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Well they are the reliable Tory vote unlike Labour's missing students.

Labour must have forgotten they began the policy of individual electoral registration while they were in government and still support it in principle,

Oh the irony

I think it was introduced here in NI around 2000 by Labour in an attempt to counter electoral fraud. It wasn't without problems though as its introduction resulted in what was considered a net loss of voters in the demographic. I think that may have been why Labour didn't introduce it.

The current policy which is mandatory in England, Scotland and Wales was introduced under the 2012 Act.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Osem

lol It's not a straw man at all. Just an observation which applies to some and not others.

No, it was nonsensical. Anyone who, if the taxpayer weren't going to subsidise the interest rate on their savings, would spend all their money and live off the taxpayer is a lunatic.

Originally Posted by Osem

Many of the people who're investing their £20k's will have gone without all sorts of things plenty of us younger folks have and still do take for granted.

Well, yeah, we have iPads, etc. How much did TVs cost in real terms way back when? Queen Elizabeth I didn't have running water, sewage, the Internet, etc. Would you say she deserves consideration because she went without all sorts of things plenty of us 'younger folks' take for granted? Standards of living are supposed to increase generation by generation, however we're now at the stage where this has stalled and will reverse. Stuff like this doesn't help.

Originally Posted by Osem

If they'd lived the way many do today and spent every penny they earned they would have been more reliant on the state throughout their working lives and more so their retirements.

That is crap, frankly. 'Many' spend every penny because of high housing costs and high cost of living relative to incomes. This fallacy that suddenly an entire generation came along that were feckless and wasteful is not true. Disposable incomes for the under-30s are dropping rapidly.

Originally Posted by Osem

Having downsized from a 3 bed semi to a shoebox a few years ago my parents have some savings which they use to supplement the miniscule state pension they're entitled to. My mum went to a grammar school but my father didn't even get an education having been forced to leave at the age of 12-13 and like many of their generation, to get the 3 bed house they wound up owning many years later they did things like scrimp and save for years - no new cars, foreign holidays, no meals out, no smoking, no drinking, second hand clothes and cheap food. By doing this they managed to provide for themselves and qualified for nothing other than child benefit. My dad was self employed so there was no such thing as unemployment benefit for him.

This is an easy one. Look at home ownership rates and the manner in which they are falling among younger age groups while rising among the oldest demographic, along with the reliance on the wealth of parents to get onto the housing ladder now. The average first time buyer without parental help is now 36.

Chances are your parents with their equivalent income wouldn't have been on the property ladder full stop today.

Originally Posted by ONS

For those aged 25 to 34, the percentage of owner occupiers declined from 58 per cent in 2001 to 40 per cent in 2011. This suggests a decline in first time home buyers, who would usually be within this age group.

Originally Posted by Osem

Thanks to the artificially low interest rates, their income has dropped significantly and their capital been eroded partly in order to bail out those who borrowed, remortgaged and borrowed some more to fund their relatively lavish lifestyles. If they are now getting some help by way of slightly higher interest rates so be it. There are plenty of things which in my opinion are far more unfair but they're probably best left to other threads.

Also not true on the whole though obviously individual households will vary. Some people have borrowed too much for a long time, this isn't some magnificent new thing. Such things were encouraged when markets were liberalised in the 1980s.

I suspect you're thinking of the under-30s with your comments about incomes, at least disposable ones, dropping significantly.



The largest increase in disposable income was in the 75+ demographic.

Certainly savers have suffered, sadly many of them, such as those under 30 trying to do the right thing and save for a deposit for their first property in the face of ever-increasing rents and decreasing disposable income, they get to subsidise others to buy votes and get nothing themselves.

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Kursk

Mums and Dads have made big sacrifices for us.

Well, the politicians they elected have certainly left us with one hell of a bill to pick up for, well, pretty much everything for sure, and many of us have and are making sacrifices in return.

What's your point with this, and perhaps more relevantly where's your evidence that this is extraordinary in some way? The largest components of the 'welfare' bill and the health bill are for those over 65, as would be expected. Sacrifices are made both ways.

EDIT: Cue 'They paid into it all their lives' when actually the majority have, even before retirement, drawn more from the system than they put into it. Sorry if I forgot the dogma that when someone retires they automatically paid their way 100% of their life and never drew more in services than they paid in taxes.

If the majority are taking out more than they put in, it is an unsustainable system.....

The welfare system was designed to help those in need, not to give child tax credits to people earning over £55k (as it used to....).

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

If the majority are taking out more than they put in, it is an unsustainable system.....

Unfortunately the sheeple don't seem to be able to comprehend that. When a politician offers them a utopian prospect they don't ever question who's going to pay for it on the assumption that it will be "The rich"

The welfare system was designed to help those in need, not to give child tax credits to people earning over £55k (as it used to....).

Buying votes has never been so expensive.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Well, the politicians they elected have certainly left us with one hell of a bill to pick up for, well, pretty much everything for sure, and many of us have and are making sacrifices in return.

What's your point with this, and perhaps more relevantly where's your evidence that this is extraordinary in some way? The largest components of the 'welfare' bill and the health bill are for those over 65, as would be expected. Sacrifices are made both ways.

EDIT: Cue 'They paid into it all their lives' when actually the majority have, even before retirement, drawn more from the system than they put into it. Sorry if I forgot the dogma that when someone retires they automatically paid their way 100% of their life and never drew more in services than they paid in taxes.

Well, I can't imagine all the oldies frittering their little "windfall" away on the high life. More likely it will be spent on their kids. Perhaps it is shrewd to pass some of the public purse to the older generation on the basis that they will use it in the manner to which they are accustomed ie with responsibility. And so the circle of economic life completes.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Well, I can't imagine all the oldies frittering their little "windfall" away on the high life. More likely it will be spent on their kids. Perhaps it is shrewd to pass some of the public purse to the older generation on the basis that they will use it in the manner to which they are accustomed ie with responsibility. And so the circle of economic life completes.

So why not, you know, just not give it to them but instead simply not have the state tax their kids or borrow more based on their future income to begin with?

This is what would normally be considered a 'conservative' way of thinking.

[bonzoe]

It's not just us oldies who "never" contributed anything or pay taxes who benefit from hand outs, have you forgotten help to buy and low mortgage rates ( much lower than I ever paid, I remember it peaking at 15%). I'm still paying my taxes, and to be honest I don't think these bonds are worth bothering with..........get better returns elsewhere.

Plus there have been tax raids on our pension savings by Blair, and interference from Maggie, all whilst looking after their pensions (funded by the taxpayer).

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by bonzoe

It's not just us oldies who "never" contributed anything or pay taxes who benefit from hand outs, have you forgotten help to buy and low mortgage rates ( much lower than I ever paid, I remember it peaking at 15%).

Hyperbole doesn't actually work, sorry. I was very clear in my comments and didn't for a moment suggest any such thing

Indeed interest rates were higher, with commensurate wage increases, alongside high inflation, the reason for said rates, eroding the real value of the loan rapidly. So while I'm sure it was a shock short-term longer term it was beneficial.

I'm entirely against Help to Buy incidentally, it's another bribe to some electorate alongside being a bung to housebuilders as thanks for their support.

Low mortgage rates I'm also not enthralled by, however these were a function of a rather misguided economic policy continued and exacerbated by the current government. The primary reason for their interference wasn't to bribe a client group of voters, it was to bail out insolvent banks, so more about taking care of the donors.

Originally Posted by bonzoe

I'm still paying my taxes, and to be honest I don't think these bonds are worth bothering with..........get better returns elsewhere.

Indeed. Buy to let is always a good one. Landlord benefit is running at 10 figures a year, then there's the various tax reliefs on it. Majority of landlords are 55+ and loving it. Probably the same grey army who appear pretty much whenever anyone wants to build housing anywhere near their properties. Could both harm the value of their main residence and bring down their rental yield and capital gains.

Originally Posted by bonzoe

Plus there have been tax raids on our pension savings by Blair, and interference from Maggie, all whilst looking after their pensions (funded by the taxpayer).

All of which were horrible policies that have caused grief across the age spectrum. The removal of higher rate pension relief has been a disaster, but wasn't confined to a specific age group.

When a group who, through constant bribery by politicians alongside some good fortune and a bunch of turns of events, continue to receive bribery from said politicians at the expense of a generation who look like they'll be the first one in peace time history to have a lower quality of life than those who came before it seems a fairly good reason to complain about unfairness and more than a little corruption.

That anyone claiming to be a 'conservative' could for a moment support such a policy is beyond comedy. It shows up the Chancellor for what he is - someone whose primary concern is, and always has been, getting re-elected and to hell with actually doing the job he's supposed to be doing. He only actually does that when it's politically expedient.

Also 'Help to Buy' is a scheme designed to prop up artificially high house prices. A better, fairer, scheme would be to dramatically increase the rate of house building in the UK but the Government are wary of increasing the supply too much in case house prices fall.