The decision to issue gilts to cover deficits is a purely political one. They can as readily be covered by taking more National Savings and Investments deposits.
Not that it makes any difference. They’re borrowing money in either case.
I’ve absolutely no idea at all why Spud thinks they’re different – has anyone bothered trying to keep up with that little synapse spasm of his?
Taking deposits? Are we to be forced to buy NS&I bonds?
I suppose they could increase the premium bond limit? Whether anyone would want more than £50k of them is a different matter.
Taking deposits?
Doesn’t that contravene the First Law of Murphodynamics?
Probably part of his idea that there is infinite demand for 1% bonds. And comments pointing out that i) there is no such demand and ii) even if there was demand, it would be more expensive for the government than issuing gilts, get deleted.
I’d buy more Premium Bonds if they upped the limit. They’ve been doing very well for me this year, and I can always dream of winning a million!
“And yet we are spending roughly £70 billion a year of government income, or rather, lost government income, by way of tax reliefs and subsidies given to support these pension funds to increase their wealth in a way that might actually be wholly counterproductive.”
And again, no mention of public sector pensions. Let’s tax public sector workers on the employee AND employer contributions made to their pensions which are, after all, a subsidy. Or is the difference because “public sector workers pay for themselves” as he argues?
So I guess Spud’s not in a position to make any contributions to a private pension.