Today brought the launch of the new pensioner bonds. These are fantastic news for going on 11 million eligible retirees in the UK: £10bn has been set aside for them and the rates are very good indeed.
There is a one-year bond paying 2.8% a year (so the equivalent of to 2.24% per annum for a basic rate taxpayer; 1.68% for a higher rate tax payer; and 1.54% for an additional rate taxpayer)
There is also a three-year bond paying 4% a year (so 3.2% per annum for a basic rate taxpayer; 2.4% for a higher rate tax payer; and 2.2% for an additional rate taxpayer).
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
In a hint of just how much the cash-rich fancy getting 4% on their money in a low inflation environment from a super secure provider, the National Savings & Investment website crashed this morning a matter of minutes after the offering opened. Pensioners have already been complaining to the press about not being able to get through on the phone.
So here's the question why should the general taxpayer finance double the going rate of interest (most three-year bonds on the market pay more like 2% than 4%) to one special demographic group? And in particular, why should it pay that rate to a group that is on average richer than all other age groups?
You might also note that the richest of the nation's pensioners will do best out of this who else has £20,000 in cash to spare outside Isa and pension wrappers to lock up in bonds such as this?
I'm all for our OAPs being well treated (I hope to be one one day) but this does seem a tiny bit unfair on everyone who is trying to build up wealth in an age of low interest rates.
So what's going on? For a clue let's look at who votes. In the 2001 election, about 76% of pensioners cast a vote. Only 44% of those young enough to be first-time voters did.
There's a similar division on income lines: 76% of ABs (upper-middle and middle-class) voted but only 57% of DEs (working-class and non-working) did the same.
And on homeownership: those who own vote more than those who don't. That's a problem. As Tim Montgomerie points out in the Times, "a skewed electorate produces skewed public policy." And in this case the government knows full well that there is more to be gained from wooing the old than the young.
Montgomerie suggests removing all these skews from our political world by introducing compulsory voting or at least the obligation to formally register an abstention. That works in Australia (93% overall turnout) and here it might too.
It would force politicians to find ways to appeal to our 16 million non-voters and compel them to "reach beyond their comfort zones". Voting might become a 20-minute burden for the reluctant every four to five years, but it would force our politicians to treat all age groups equally and hence to "change in fundamental ways."
Not convinced? Then think about this: if everyone voted, would only pensioners be being offered three-year fixed rate bonds at 4%? Quite.
-
Cost of Christmas dinner jumps 6.5% as grocery price inflation rises againThe average Christmas dinner for four now costs £32.57 as grocery price inflation increases - but what does it mean for interest rates?
-
Taking control of your business expenses with WallesterWhy Wallester Business is your cost-effective solution to help you take financial control of your business
-
Our pension system, little-changed since Roman times, needs updatingOpinion The Romans introduced pensions, and we still have a similar system now. But there is one vital difference between Roman times and now that means the system needs updating, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
We’re doing well on pensions – but we still need to do betterOpinion Pensions auto-enrolment has vastly increased the number of people in the UK with retirement savings. But we’re still not engaged enough, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
Older people may own their own home, but the young have better pensionsOpinion UK house prices mean owning a home remains a pipe dream for many young people, but they should have a comfortable retirement, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
How to avoid a miserable retirementOpinion The trouble with the UK’s private pension system, says Merryn Somerset Webb, is that it leaves most of us at the mercy of the markets. And the outlook for the markets is miserable.
-
Young investors could bet on NFTs over traditional investmentsOpinion The first batch of child trust funds and Junior Isas are maturing. But young investors could be tempted to bet their proceeds on digital baubles such as NFTs rather than rolling their money over into traditional investments
-
Negative interest rates and the end of free bank accountsOpinion Negative interest rates are likely to mean the introduction of fees for current accounts and other banking products. But that might make the UK banking system slightly less awful, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
Pandemics, politicians and gold-plated pensionsAdvice As more and more people lose their jobs to the pandemic and the lockdowns imposed to deal with it, there’s one bunch of people who won’t have to worry about their future: politicians, with their generous defined-benefits pensions.
-
How the stamp duty holiday is pushing up house pricesOpinion Stamp duty is an awful tax and should be replaced by something better. But its temporary removal is driving up house prices, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
