Such advice may sound like madness at a time when thousands of workers fear job cuts, there are record numbers of insolvencies, concerns about a housing market slump and a double-dip recession, and the pensions gap is wider than ever.  Prudent savers have been hit hard by the financial crisis and subsequent recession. The measures taken to stabilise the banks and kick-start the economy have resulted in rock-bottom interest rates and rising inflation – both anathema for those trying to build a decent nest egg for their retirement.  While the Bank of England's economic policies have cushioned those who mortgaged themselves to the hilt, splurged on credit cards and spent all they earned, helping to create the debt bubble in the first place, many are angry that no help has been given to savers, who outnumber borrowers by about nine to one.  Now they are being urged to sacrifice some of their hard-earned savings in order to give a temporary boost to the country's output.  Mike Warburton, an accountant with Grant Thornton, is one of many to have branded Mr Bean's comments "irresponsible", saying they run contrary to sound financial advice.  But there are several reasons why you should be saving, not spending, and why we should ignore this misguided advice.  For a start, savers should be focused on securing their own financial future, not the country's. This means building a decent retirement fund, using pensions, Isas and other savings vehicles.  Most of us are woefully under-pensioned. Recent figures from the Office for National Statistics show that more than a third of pensioner couples (38pc) receive an income of less than £5,000 a year.  Mr Warburton said: "It is irresponsible for a man in his [Mr Bean's] position to encourage a generation nearing retirement to go on a spending spree." He added: "As a baby boomer myself my preoccupation at the moment is to stuff as much into my pension fund as I can, cut my spending down and save what I can in the hope that it will compensate me for the falling value of my savings, as the paltry interest rates available fail to keep pace with inflation."  Ros Altmann, the director general of Saga, agreed. "Does Charlie Bean not understand how dangerous it is to undermine both savers and pensions?"  You should also think about having a safety net. Government spending cuts will be announced in this month's Comprehensive Spending Review, which is likely to trigger further job losses. Economic recovery is not yet assured and there are fears of another housing slump. So it makes sense to build a financial cushion to ensure that essential bills can be paid if the worst happens.  Christine Ross, the head of financial planning at SG Hambros, the private bank, said: "People just don't know what is going to happen – whether it is losing their job, paying medical bills or future nursing care costs, or even how long they are going to live for. Having savings gives them choices, and it's unrealistic to expect people to deliberately reduce this safety net, particularly when the one provided by the state is set so close to the ground."  Financial experts recommend a savings fund equivalent to between three and six months' salary. Even if you have this cushion, you may want to use spare income to buy insurance that would pay out should you lose your job or be unable to work through ill health.  According to Lifesearch, the financial adviser, a comprehensive income protection policy costs about £50 a month for a healthy 30-year-old man. This includes unemployment cover with a 60-day excess period.  Savings don't just mean depositing money in the bank. Worried consumers should use the low-interest-rate environment to pay off some of their debts rather than spending spare cash. The Bank of England's latest consumer credit figures show that this is precisely what people are doing. The amount borrowed on credit cards, overdrafts and loans fell by £120m in August – the biggest drop since 2009.  People who decide to splash their cash need to be aware that if you "eat into your capital", it will take a long time to replace this money. Inflation means that most people's savings are losing money in real terms; if you further reduce the size of your savings pot, you are only accelerating this process  While many home owners have substantial equity in their property, accessing it can be costly. Interest rates may be low, but the margins charged by most mortgage lenders have risen. Equity release mortgages can look poor value. These loans release a tax-free lump sum but no repayments have to be made; instead the original loan and the interest on it are repaid out of the proceeds of your estate on death (or when you move into a nursing home).  But home owners should be aware that interest will keep being added until the loan is repaid. So if you are 55 and live to 91 there will be 36 years' worth of interest to pay.  Most release charge about 7pc interest, meaning that the size of your loan doubles every 12 years. So in the above example a 55-year-old taking £30,000 of equity out of their home would repay £240,000 if they died at 91. No one can deny that savers are having a tough time.  The vast majority of savings accounts fail to beat inflation, according to Moneyfacts.co.uk, and the problem is particularly acute for higher-rate taxpayers as the taxman takes 40pc of any savings interest earned.
We are all being urged to spend rather than save. But is it's advice we should    heed?