On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:33:40 +0100, "J.G.Harston"
wrote:

At one time my firm was putting 18% of my gross into the pot, and
deducting 9% from that as my contribution.
I'd not call that lucky, merely prudent.

When I was working I was putting about 25% of my gross into my pension.
The way I figure it, it means I have to be earning for three years for
every year I'm not earning. I have little sympathy for these people who
are up in arms about being forced to put 9% of their income into their
pensionsm unless they really are planning to only live for five weeks
for every year they've been earning.


Fairy snuff.

But for me that might be 3-4 years. Given my prospective state of
health that's not too far from being more /less adequate for me (Out
of about 6 of us, one of my colleagues died this week at age 65 [Lung
Cancer], another died earlier at 63 [Heart failure])

At various times in the last 34 years since we started our scheme that
would have been nothing like necessary. Our fund went up by 27% in one
single year. Try grossing Ca. £4k up for 34 years at 27% compound
interest and see what you get.

IGWS Sadly this level of performance has not been maintained.

In fact the provider strove assiduously to conceal the fact that our
pension fund was investment based at all, when I asked what our
ultimate pension would be the sleaze-ball salesman just said it would
be "Telephone Numbers" but that that was alright because it was all
run under I.R. scrutiny according to government rules.

It was only when the government were pressed to underwrite the outcome
of the Maxwell debacle in favour of pensioners who had been skanked
that they started talking about the Maxwell Pension fund in terms of
it being a "Bad Investment" (like a bet on the 2-30 at Kempton Park),
and hence not something they need to concern themselves about.

Derek G.

--

This Looks like Finito Ruperto.