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

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Well I don't agree with job seekers allowances, working tax credits, child benefit, housing benefit etc etc but I just have to suck it up. The welfare system has become a lifestyle choice. The £26k cap is more than a lot of people earn. And whilst we're at it all that DLA and the like needs reviewing.

While giving taxpayers' cash to people who can afford to save to boost their interest rates is fine, welfare in general to help out the poorest in society is bad, and allowances to help the disabled 'need reviewing'.

Not only giving taxpayers' cash to people who can afford to save, of course, but also restricting it to a single age group while attempting to pass it off as encouraging prudence and saving, as presumably a particular demographic need more encouragement.

It's an interesting point of view for sure.

Some might say a rather extreme and intensely unfair one.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

While giving taxpayers' cash to people who can afford to save to boost their interest rates is fine, welfare in general to help out the poorest in society is bad, and allowances to help the disabled 'need reviewing'.

Not only giving taxpayers' cash to people who can afford to save, of course, but also restricting it to a single age group while attempting to pass it off as encouraging prudence and saving, as presumably a particular demographic need more encouragement.

It's an interesting point of view for sure.

Some might say a rather extreme and intensely unfair one.

wouldn't be so bad if it was helping the poorest pensioners, what do they get out of this tax payer funded give away?

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Some might say a rather extreme and intensely unfair one.

Some might say pensioners are/have been taxpayers too (and are being 'bribed' with their own money). Some might say there are those who choose not to work and therefore not to contribute but who are heaped with layers of benefit and that that is intensely unfair.

It's a deep rabbit hole.

[Ignitionnet]

Understood.

All retiree welfare good as they've all contributed more than their share and it's their own money, all working age welfare bad as none of them have contributed anything. Apart from welfare for the disabled, that needs reviewing as it's potentially bad.

---------- Post added at 08:15 ---------- Previous post was at 08:12 ----------

You may get a kick out of the views of the Conservative MP for Bracknell. Someone else with an 'anti-parental' stance it seems.

This obviously ignoring those oldie-haters on the BBC article.



They have a great point - the Chancellor is full of it on this one and should be offering this to everyone or, better yet, the Bank of England should quit with the 'emergency' low interest rates and start trying to return us to some semblance of normality a step at a time.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

.........the Bank of England should quit with the 'emergency' low interest rates and start trying to return us to some semblance of normality a step at a time.

Agreed. In the meantime the benefit from pensioner bonds is a drop in the ocean imho.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Agreed. In the meantime the benefit from pensioner bonds is a drop in the ocean imho.

Which isn't, in any way, the point. As far as I'm aware never has been so I apologise for the confusion if I did make it.

It may be a 'drop in the ocean' but it's more than the combined savings of reducing the welfare cap from £26k to £23k and removing housing benefit from 18-21 year olds on JSA.

I rarely do this but I go along with the Tory MP on this one as he put his thoughts in a more erudite way than I can. Giving the impression of taking from the young and poor to give to the older and wealthier isn't good.

It seems an odd position to be against welfare for the poor but be fine with welfare for the relatively wealthy, so long as they are the right age, but each to their own.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I rarely do this but I go along with the Tory MP on this one as he put his thoughts in a more erudite way than I can. Giving the impression of taking from the young and poor to give to the older and wealthier isn't good.

But it's not a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Unless you feel that as a non-beneficiary of either bonds or benefits, I am being stitched up. Perhaps the MP could argue my case for me...

And how can I politely conclude and withdraw without antagonising you ?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Kursk

But it's not a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Unless you feel that as a non-beneficiary of either bonds or benefits, I am being stitched up. Perhaps the MP could argue my case for me...

And how can I politely conclude and withdraw without antagonising you ?

We're all in it together, there's no money left, we need austerity to balance the books, etc, etc. Tuition fees, removal of EMA, welfare cuts and this. It's absurd to suggest there aren't limited resources and the decision was made to allocate them in this way.

The Torygraph hit the nail on the head.

Your withdrawing in any manner you see fit isn't going to antagonise me.

[Kursk]

The bill for handouts to drunks and druggies is more than the interest pensioners can expect. Those who self inflict their own pain can go whistle for all I care.

[richard s]

Benefits the comfortable to well-off pensioners, but the poor with no savings there is no benefit.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by richard s

Benefits the comfortable to well-off pensioners, but the poor with no savings there is no benefit.

Benefits also benefit comfortably well-off layabouts. If Robin Hood was real he'd be taking from those in receipt of a plethora of lifestyle benefits to give to those less well off like the poor pensioners you mention.

[richard s]

Good old Robin were his he when you need him.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by richard s

Good old Robin were his he when you need him.

Hopefully, teaching spelling and punctuation .