On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:44:36 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

On 14 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:27:27 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
OK. So the implication of this is that you are willing to
accept a lower return on your investments.

The return would go up if we were allowed to use slaves. Are you
advocating that idea or do you accept certain limitations?

Of course there are limitations.


I am simply pointing out that the suggestion of squeezing company
profits in order to fund higher payroll has consequences for
investments that many people make to fund their retirement.

There was, perhaps, some validity in that when pension schemes were
honoured. But that day's gone.

The last few years have sseen cost efficiencies which involve corporate
management saying: "You know that deferred income that you were
supposed to have, which compensated your lower salary in order to fund
your pension? Well, to increase current efficiency we can't afford
your pension any more -- sorry, but you should have saved more, out of
that salary that we didn't pay you so that your pension would be
funded".

As arranged by the large pension firms, the pension industry has become
-- by and large -- a financial scam.


Yes indeed, which is why it is prudent, and always has been, to have a
range of investment vheicles for retirement and other purposes.





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl