On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:23:44 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:



OK. So the implication of this is that you are willing to accept a
lower return on your investments.

Investments? What investments




At the end of the day, it becomes a question of whether other
employees are willing to make sacrifices in their terms and conditions
or whether the public are willing to pay more for their travel or
receive less from their investments.

I don't see any volunteers lining up for any of those.

No, neither do I so let's just screw the most vulnerable and least
able to do anything about it.

OK, so following the logic of reducing profits, the direct result is a
reduction in the returns available from investments such as pension
schemes. Thus the most vulnerable in our society, the pensioners,
are hit.

The most vulnerable in our society are not the pensioners living off
pension schemes (although I admit that will be the case eventually).
Those living off a state pension, disability pensions and the dole are
somewhat less well off.

My mother lives off a state pension only. If anyone would like to
contribute towards a few investments for her I'm sure she'd appreciate
it. Sadly, nursing for 47 years didn't quite give her the income to
put much by and having the stupidity to marry a garage mechanic who
worked for someone else having three kids didn't help either.

Still, I can't complain - neither of my parents were ever out of work
and we were never hungry. Also we don't have to worry about
inheritance tax...

And you've no need to worry about her, at 85 she won't be a burden on
the state for too much longer and her three kids suppliment her
pension to make it possible for her to live comfortably. Perhaps
having three kids wasn't such a bad idea after all.

--
Warning: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye.