A few percent compounded over a couple of decades makes a big difference as anyone with a cse in maths will know.
A few percent compounded over a couple of decades makes a big difference as anyone with a cse in maths will know.
Socialist like to steal ANY money they can lay their hands on. They can buy votes from the idle with it.
So the perpetual raids on the family silver during the Thatcher and Major era was the act of a socialist government then?
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.
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
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
The phrase "public ownership" always makes me laugh. That and "natural justice".
YAJosephConrad'sNostromoAICM5silveringots
Nick
And your only option is to put in more money to compensate, so in effect he has grabbed part of your pot.
Semantics
And he switched about £2.5bn per annum of income from the state pension fund to the Treasury under the guise of Green Taxes..
In message , harry writes
And immigrants
Plus the phrase "in the twenty-first century"
an
, Man
The penny drops, at last.
MBQ
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.
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.
True.
at
Good. You've finally accepted that it is a grab on the pension funds.
No he didn't he sold our gold instead.
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.
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.
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.