Annual Purchase Limit For Savings Bonds Set at $5,000Let's see. If the economy is in terrible shape would the government want to sell more, or fewer savings bonds?The annual limitation on purchases of United States Savings Bonds will be set at $5,000 per Social Security Number, effective January 1, 2008. The limit applies separately to Series EE and Series I savings bonds, and separately to bonds issued in paper or electronic form. Under the new rules, an individual can buy a maximum of $5,000 worth of electronic and paper bonds of each series in a single calendar year, or a total of $20,000, in single ownership form. If paper bonds are issued in co-ownership form, the limit applies to the first-named co-owner. All limits are based on the issue price of the securities.
The reduction from the $30,000 annual limit in effect for both series since 2003 was made to refocus the savings bond program on its original purpose of making these non-marketable Treasury securities available to individuals with relatively small sums to invest. Approximately 98 percent of all annual purchases of savings bonds by individuals are for $5,000 or less. The minimum purchase price for Series EE bonds is $25, whether purchased electronically or in paper form; the I bond minimum purchase is $25 for bonds issued in electronic form and $50 for those in paper form.
I'm kind of puzzled by this. I'm thinking if the economy was bad, they'd want to sell more bonds... which would get more income into the Treasury in the short term.
But then agian...
Well, hell. I can barely keep my checking account somewhat balanced. I can't figure out what the government wants to do any more.
J.
Comments (1)
Yeah...me too.
It seems that the economy has to _grow_. The only way for the economy to grow is for us to consume more. In order to consume more, we have to go into debt (I read somewhere that the _average_ credit card debt load is $9000 per family - yikes!!). But debt is bad. But savings are good - aren't they? Apparently we can't encourage savings and investment because then people wouldn't spend and the economy would grow.
A person can only eat and drink just so much, so it seems that in order to increase consumption, we have to make more disposable goods. But then more disposablt goods fill up our waste sites and pollute the world.
My head is spinning.
I remember growing up...there were _no_ - as in none - fast food restaurants. Howard Johnson's was as close as it got. When my kids were growing up, McDs was probably the only one. I wonder if anyone has ever figured out how many fast food restaurants there are per mile of US highways? or miles per fast food joint - whichever. How many there were 30 years ago, and how many now. It might make for an interesting comparison.
Posted by suek | January 22, 2008 12:07 PM
Posted on January 22, 2008 12:07