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

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Y'know ignition, I'm quite happy for the older generation to get something from the public purse. I wouldn't refer to it as a bribe though, I would call it a deserved gift .

Would you mind explaining why it is 'deserved'?

I think we've already gone down this route and you were unable to previously, but I'd more than welcome it.

Again, there are a few points of view that are entirely at odds and being used to counter what I've said. I'm genuinely struggling to see any coherent case being put forward but instead emotive arguments that they appear to boil down to that they are deserving because they're older.

---------- Post added at 08:34 ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Point of information - it's not £20k per year, it's £20k in total, with £10k in the 1 year bond, and £10k (maximum) in the 3 year bond.

And also, the comment on your linked stat above It could also suggest a rise in people in that age group blowing their disposable income on other things, like most of the ones in Leeds you can see in trendy bars at the top of Briggate or around the Trinity Arcade/Calls Lane/Corn Exchange on a Thursday/Friday/Saturday night...

Some interesting stats here - http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/57...ts-and-graphs/

I found this one informative, as it reflects my own experiences..



So perhaps we didn't have it as easy as is stated, with mortgage payments over 50% of salary....

Flipside though is that that graph is skewed heavily by the drop in home ownership rates among younger, and hence less wealthy demographics. Slice off the top 20%+ at one extreme and you inevitably end up with something more flattering.

The jump in percentage of income consumed by mortgage repayments was a brief, one-off event as a result of the disastrous dalliance with the ERM. This had a few effects, it did indeed cause an interest rate spike, which both spiked mortgage payments and, however, eroded the value of principle very quickly.

It's pretty scary looking at that graph, actually. Mortgage rates are about as low as they could be, there're still tons of interest-only mortgages, there are only 1/3rd the number of under-25s and half the number of under-35s on the ladder yet mortgage payments are still 1/3rd of income.

Keeping the interest rates so low is both holding prices high and leaving no real inflation to erode the principle.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Would you mind explaining why it is 'deserved'?

Because they have a responsible attitude toward money and can be trusted to use whatever little extra they get wisely. It is only a few bob they're getting in their twilight years; they still won't be as well off as you

Have you noticed that although you have put quite a bit of effort into your argument, you've not managed to carry one voice in support? I know that doesn't change your view but it seems to be a minority view both here and in general.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Because they have a responsible attitude toward money and can be trusted to use whatever little extra they get wisely.

Ah the feckless youth argument, because clearly fecklessness is an entirely new thing over the past.... hang on, older generations have been calling younger ones feckless since time immemorial. How far back are we needing to go?

Originally Posted by Kursk

It is only a few bob they're getting in their twilight years; they still won't be as well off as you

I'll remind anyone who comments about those who are of working age on welfare that it's just a few quid and they still won't be as well off as those making the comments.

Some more help for those under 30 to help them be more productive in society would still leave most of them not as well off as me; it would however have the bonus that the country would be more successful as a whole. Our young will be propping up the ponzi scheme at some point.

Originally Posted by Kursk

Have you noticed that although you have put quite a bit of effort into your argument, you've not managed to carry one voice in support? I know that doesn't change your view but it seems to be a minority view both here and in general.

I've noticed that only one poster has actually posted anything substantial in rebuttal - which speaks volumes.

I have actually had support, though in private rather than public.

It seems to be one of those emotive debates where people have sincerely held opinions but no or very little data to actually back those opinions up.

Regrettably I'm a big fan of data. I don't give people huge amounts of kudos for remaining alive, that's a pretty basic human instinct.

[bonzoe]

yes, we can agree on somethings, it IS an emotive issue, as are so many things in life. Life is not based on data but emotions, what is love? How is that explained in pure data, it may be possible but it is beyond me.

As you say, each and every generation has called the younger generation feckless, but in my feckless years I did not begrudge the older generation their "benefits".

Perhaps I have a more caring attitude to life than your admitted "I'm alright Jack" stance.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Those weren't being taken directly out of taxation / added onto borrowing as this is.

They were also not, primarily, for that purpose, but to avoid banks going insolvent and keep the UK's gilt interest rate down.

Not comparable.

Not directly comparable but equally unfair to one group of people - which is the point I was making. You may care more about losing £££'s to a 'bribe' than a necessary 'policy' but the financial result is the same for a group of people who've done nothing wrong.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Ah........etc

Commenting further would feel like Groundhog Day .

There are bigger fish to fry than a small benefit for our mums and dads.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Commenting further would feel like Groundhog Day .

There are bigger fish to fry than our mums and dads.

For some reason images of Bliar and Brown come to mind...

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by bonzoe

yes, we can agree on somethings, it IS an emotive issue, as are so many things in life. Life is not based on data but emotions, what is love? How is that explained in pure data, it may be possible but it is beyond me.

As you say, each and every generation has called the younger generation feckless, but in my feckless years I did not begrudge the older generation their "benefits".

Perhaps I have a more caring attitude to life than your admitted "I'm alright Jack" stance.

Oh I see, so I've gone from being jealous to 'I'm alright Jack' now that it's clear I have no reason to be jealous.

Although if I'm alright it does beg the question of why I'm repeatedly raising the plight of the under-30s.

Anything else you'd care to try in this 'discussion'? So far we've had jealousy and selfishness. What's next on the list?

---------- Post added at 16:24 ---------- Previous post was at 16:22 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Not directly comparable but equally unfair to one group of people - which is the point I was making. You may care more about losing £££'s to a 'bribe' than a necessary 'policy' but the financial result is the same for a group of people who've done nothing wrong.

A lot of things are unfair. That's life. Intentionally making them more unfair is an entirely different matter.

Maybe you could explain why, if it's been all that bad for those on fixed incomes, the largest increase in disposable income in percentage terms between 2008 and 13 was in the over-75 age group?

Sorry, again, I'm bringing facts into the discussion. I really must stop.

---------- Post added at 16:29 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Kursk

Commenting further would feel like Groundhog Day .

There are bigger fish to fry than a small benefit for our mums and dads.

It would. Thank you for proving my point by, again, being unable to back up your opinion with anything.

If you can actually come up with some decent reasons why they 'deserve' the various bungs they've been given this Parliament while the under-30s see an unprecedented drop in their disposable income, yes the same under-30s who'll be paying for any state-provided healthcare and welfare benefits when we retire, we can certainly revisit.

As it is everyone is entitled to their opinions, I'm entitled to say that I think their opinions are nonsense and ask for something to back them up.

It's all good.

EDIT: The below runs both ways, incidentally. I got something wrong and Hugh picked me up on it

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

It would. Thank you for proving my point by, again, being unable to back up your opinion with anything.

I really just don't feel inclined, or see the need, to back up my opinion. I'm happy with the policy; that's as far as it goes for me. You're not visiting your angst upon me Iggy

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Kursk

I really just don't feel inclined, or see the need, to back up my opinion. I'm happy with the policy; that's as far as it goes for me. You're not visiting your angst upon me Iggy

That is fair enough! Nothing to work with or disagree with. To each their own and all that.

[denphone]

Pensioner bond scheme to be extended.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31241867

[Ignitionnet]

Comments on that BBC article if sorted by 'Highest Rated' are interesting.

[Kursk]

The comments are swayed by the analysis unlike here where no-one bit on your anti-parental stance. Leave our oldies alone

Originally Posted by Kursk

The comments are swayed by the analysis unlike here where no-one bit on your anti-parental stance. Leave our oldies alone

I agree with Ignitionnet. It's not anti-parental either. It's being against giving one sector of society increased benefits and spending, which is essentially what this is, whilst you're cutting services for others. I don't see the justification giving better than market rate for pensioners' savings when your cutting housing and job seekers allowance for young people.

Labour are often accused of wanting to spend all the time but that's what this is, it's just targeting a different demographic.

[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.