OT. Ten percent.

A few percent compounded over a couple of decades makes a big difference as anyone with a cse in maths will know.

Reply to
dennis
Loading thread data ...

Socialist like to steal ANY money they can lay their hands on. They can buy votes from the idle with it.

Reply to
harry

So the perpetual raids on the family silver during the Thatcher and Major era was the act of a socialist government then?

Reply to
The Other Mike

There was no "family silver". There were just assets owned by an entity called "The Government" which assigned itself the rights to these assets, and then proceeded to run them inefficiently and announced arbitrary price-rises on a yearly basis with essentially no discussion or regulation. They made *stinking* losses.

You'll note that these assets were *not* owned by "us" during this process.

Reply to
Tim Streater

an

at

Nope. They're all thing to take account of when reviewing your pension planning.

He didn't grab anything form the funds. He taxed their *future* growth.

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

Two percent pa tops, if we are generous and asume 10% dividends with a fund invested 100% in dividend paying investment vehicles..

And anyone with half a brain would have seen what would happen and planned accordingly.

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

The phrase "public ownership" always makes me laugh. That and "natural justice".

Reply to
Huge

YAJosephConrad'sNostromoAICM5silveringots

Nick

Reply to
Nick Odell

And your only option is to put in more money to compensate, so in effect he has grabbed part of your pot.

Semantics

Reply to
bert

And he switched about £2.5bn per annum of income from the state pension fund to the Treasury under the guise of Green Taxes..

Reply to
bert

In message , harry writes

And immigrants

Reply to
bert

Plus the phrase "in the twenty-first century"

Reply to
bert

an

, Man

The penny drops, at last.

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

There is, of course, something which can be correctly described as "public ownership", and that is when a member of the public owns shares in a public company. A public company is one whose shares are traded and available for purchase. A private company is one whose shares are not traded because they are all owned by one or possible two people [1].

[1] the latter definition may not be exact, but is good enough for now.
Reply to
Tim Streater

Oh, I know, but that's not what politicians mean when they use the phrase; they're talking about State ownership. That's why it's funny.

And you can see "natural justice" on any wildlife programme.

Reply to
Huge

True.

Reply to
harry

at

Good. You've finally accepted that it is a grab on the pension funds.

Reply to
bert

No he didn't he sold our gold instead.

formatting link

Reply to
whisky-dave

In message , at

14:43:50 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013, Tim Streater remarked:

Faintly reminiscent of the UK/US English situation where a Public School in the former is privately-run and in the latter is state-run.

Reply to
Roland Perry

Yes, almost everyone has bought a house 'on tick'. Hardly anybody, other than those with very rich parents, pays cash for a first house.

When the world changes, as it does, companies and private individuals may find their income reduced. That may not cause any immediate problem other than a need to reduce the outgoings, but the next such change can mean that there's a need to borrow in order to pay for modernisation, repairs, etc., the alternative being to go out of business. Or, for an individual, to become homeless. That's unlikely to be anyone's first choice.

Some few may recklessly borrow huge amounts without good reason, but I doubt if many would.

Reply to
Windmill

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.