On Feb 21, 7:14*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...









On Feb 21, 9:58 am, Mark
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:40:47 +0000, Broadback

wrote:
On 20/02/2013 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
* * bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

As an OAP I find it odd that as, on average, high savings accounts,we
are penalised by inflation eating the value away

Inflation affects everyone. *Many working people have had little or no
pay rises (and some have had pay cuts) over the last few years.

while interest rates
are kept low so that the provenders can have it relatively easy. Who is
subsidising whom?

The poor subsidise the rich. *Borrowers always pay higher interest
rates than savers get.

Anyway low interest rates are essential in preventing the financial
crisis being much worse.

Low interest rates will destroy the economy.

Fantasy.

You're pretty thick Wodders aren't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 21, 7:14 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...









On Feb 21, 9:58 am, Mark
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:40:47 +0000, Broadback

wrote:
On 20/02/2013 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to
hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically
become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

As an OAP I find it odd that as, on average, high savings accounts,we
are penalised by inflation eating the value away

Inflation affects everyone. Many working people have had little or no
pay rises (and some have had pay cuts) over the last few years.

while interest rates
are kept low so that the provenders can have it relatively easy. Who
is
subsidising whom?

The poor subsidise the rich. Borrowers always pay higher interest
rates than savers get.

Anyway low interest rates are essential in preventing the financial
crisis being much worse.

Low interest rates will destroy the economy.

Fantasy.

You're pretty thick Wodders aren't you?

We'll see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate

Doesn't say a thing about low interest rates destroying the economy.

Try again.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

No but you have to generalise.
--
bert

In message , Mark
writes
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:40:47 +0000, Broadback
wrote:

On 20/02/2013 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

As an OAP I find it odd that as, on average, high savings accounts,we
are penalised by inflation eating the value away

Inflation affects everyone. Many working people have had little or no
pay rises (and some have had pay cuts) over the last few years.

while interest rates
are kept low so that the provenders can have it relatively easy. Who is
subsidising whom?

The poor subsidise the rich. Borrowers always pay higher interest
rates than savers get.

Anyway low interest rates are essential in preventing the financial
crisis being much worse.
But the law of diminishing returns applies. Businesses always moan about
interest rates just as farmers always complain about the weather.

The one financial institution which isn't restricting its lending hand
has been unaffected by any crisis has very high interest rates - the
credit card companies.
--
bert

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Yehbut, if you've organised things properly, you should have paid off
your mortgage, kids off your hands etc by the time you retire. And no
more of the often considerable expense of getting to work and
subsistance there.


No you stay at home and have to heat your house all day - and you still
have to eat.

The extra cost of heating the house all day is pretty small compared to a
mortgage - or the cost of bringing up kids.
And are you really saying it costs you the same to eat at home as eating
out?

It is more difficult for many to get to supermarkets and so
shopping is more expensive.

Maybe. There aren't really any corner shops round here so it's just as
easy to go to a supermarket. Or have things delivered from one each week?

Funny, no-one was commenting about pensioners when things were going
well and they were only getting increases at inflation whereas wages
were increasing more rapidly

Well, when I started work many years ago, the hope was near everyone would
be in some form of pension scheme as well as the state one. But it's now
far more important that the rich get even richer.

It used to be compulsory with any large company to join the pension
scheme after 1 or 2 years.
But then the twittering classes said that wasn't "fair" and so few opted
in and the schemes have died.
--
bert

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Mark
writes
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:40:47 +0000, Broadback
wrote:

On 20/02/2013 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

As an OAP I find it odd that as, on average, high savings accounts,we
are penalised by inflation eating the value away

Inflation affects everyone. Many working people have had little or no
pay rises (and some have had pay cuts) over the last few years.

while interest rates
are kept low so that the provenders can have it relatively easy. Who is
subsidising whom?

The poor subsidise the rich. Borrowers always pay higher interest
rates than savers get.

Anyway low interest rates are essential in preventing the financial
crisis being much worse.

But the law of diminishing returns applies.

Sure, and once you get to zero, you have a problem.

Businesses always moan about interest rates

And the economy clearly isnt doing as well as it has done.

just as farmers always complain about the weather.

The one financial institution which isn't restricting its lending hand has
been unaffected by any crisis has very high interest rates - the credit
card companies.

They are restricting their lending in some jurisdictions.

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Yehbut, if you've organised things properly, you should have paid off
your mortgage, kids off your hands etc by the time you retire. And no
more of the often considerable expense of getting to work and
subsistance there.


No you stay at home and have to heat your house all day - and you still
have to eat.

The extra cost of heating the house all day is pretty small compared to a
mortgage - or the cost of bringing up kids.
And are you really saying it costs you the same to eat at home as eating
out?

It is more difficult for many to get to supermarkets and so
shopping is more expensive.

Maybe. There aren't really any corner shops round here so it's just as
easy to go to a supermarket. Or have things delivered from one each week?

Funny, no-one was commenting about pensioners when things were going
well and they were only getting increases at inflation whereas wages
were increasing more rapidly

Well, when I started work many years ago, the hope was near everyone would
be in some form of pension scheme as well as the state one. But it's now
far more important that the rich get even richer.

It used to be compulsory with any large company to join the pension scheme
after 1 or 2 years.
But then the twittering classes said that wasn't "fair" and so few opted
in and the schemes have died.

That wasn't the reason they died.

On Feb 22, 8:28*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...









On Feb 21, 7:14 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

....

On Feb 21, 9:58 am, Mark
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:40:47 +0000, Broadback

wrote:
On 20/02/2013 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
* * bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to
hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically
become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

As an OAP I find it odd that as, on average, high savings accounts,we
are penalised by inflation eating the value away

Inflation affects everyone. *Many working people have had little or no
pay rises (and some have had pay cuts) over the last few years.

while interest rates
are kept low so that the provenders can have it relatively easy. Who
is
subsidising whom?

The poor subsidise the rich. *Borrowers always pay higher interest
rates than savers get.

Anyway low interest rates are essential in preventing the financial
crisis being much worse.

Low interest rates will destroy the economy.

Fantasy.

You're pretty thick Wodders aren't you?

We'll see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate

Doesn't say a thing about low interest rates destroying the economy.

Try again.

You are a f***k half wit Wodders.
Were you never educated?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...pe=&as_rights=

harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
harry wrote
Mark wrote
Broadback wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
bert ] wrote

Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to
hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically
become decrepit the second you get an OAP.

As an OAP I find it odd that as, on average, high savings accounts,
we are penalised by inflation eating the value away

Inflation affects everyone. Many working people have had little or
no pay rises (and some have had pay cuts) over the last few years.

while interest rates are kept low so that the provenders
can have it relatively easy. Who is subsidising whom?

The poor subsidise the rich. Borrowers always
pay higher interest rates than savers get.

Anyway low interest rates are essential in
preventing the financial crisis being much worse.

Low interest rates will destroy the economy.

Fantasy.

You're pretty thick Wodders aren't you?

We'll see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate

Doesn't say a thing about low interest rates destroying the economy.

Try again.

You are a f***k half wit Wodders.

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, fart.

Were you never educated?

Yep, leaves yours for dead, too.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...+for+econo my

Just because some fool claims something, doesn't make it gospel.

Have fun listing even a single example of any modern first world
economy that's EVER been DESTROYED by low interest rates.

On 23/02/2013 00:13, bert wrote:
It used to be compulsory with any large company to join the pension
scheme after 1 or 2 years.
But then the twittering classes said that wasn't "fair" and so few opted
in and the schemes have died.

That's not why the schemes have died.

People tended not to die so soon, so costs went up. Then we went
through a phase where the returns on the investments were really good,
and companies realised it was cheaper to pension off their older staff
rather than make people redundant (cost to pension fund, not to company,
and it was overfunded so WTH). Then the returns went back to normal
leaving funds underfunded... so Blair and Brown came along and made a
"minor change" (about 5 billion a year) to the way pension funds
were taxed, and suddenly they were unaffordable.

Except to those paid by the taxpayer, not private sector companies.

Andy

In message , Rod Speed
writes


"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Mark
writes
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:40:47 +0000, Broadback
wrote:

On 20/02/2013 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

As an OAP I find it odd that as, on average, high savings accounts,we
are penalised by inflation eating the value away

Inflation affects everyone. Many working people have had little or no
pay rises (and some have had pay cuts) over the last few years.

while interest rates
are kept low so that the provenders can have it relatively easy. Who is
subsidising whom?

The poor subsidise the rich. Borrowers always pay higher interest
rates than savers get.

Anyway low interest rates are essential in preventing the financial
crisis being much worse.

But the law of diminishing returns applies.

Sure, and once you get to zero, you have a problem.

Businesses always moan about interest rates

And the economy clearly isnt doing as well as it has done.

That depends on hope you measure it. GDP does not take into account debt
so as Labour did (and will do again if given the chance) you can make it
appear that the economy is doing well by borrowing more and artificially
inflating GDP
just as farmers always complain about the weather.

The one financial institution which isn't restricting its lending
hand has been unaffected by any crisis has very high interest rates -
the credit card companies.

They are restricting their lending in some jurisdictions.
In this instance we are talking about the UK and I personally have seen
no evidence of any tightening of restrictions on lending.
--
bert

In message , Rod Speed
writes


"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Yehbut, if you've organised things properly, you should have paid off
your mortgage, kids off your hands etc by the time you retire. And no
more of the often considerable expense of getting to work and
subsistance there.


No you stay at home and have to heat your house all day - and you still
have to eat.

The extra cost of heating the house all day is pretty small compared to a
mortgage - or the cost of bringing up kids.
And are you really saying it costs you the same to eat at home as eating
out?

It is more difficult for many to get to supermarkets and so
shopping is more expensive.

Maybe. There aren't really any corner shops round here so it's just as
easy to go to a supermarket. Or have things delivered from one each week?

Funny, no-one was commenting about pensioners when things were going
well and they were only getting increases at inflation whereas wages
were increasing more rapidly

Well, when I started work many years ago, the hope was near everyone would
be in some form of pension scheme as well as the state one. But it's now
far more important that the rich get even richer.

It used to be compulsory with any large company to join the pension
scheme after 1 or 2 years.
But then the twittering classes said that wasn't "fair" and so few
opted in and the schemes have died.

That wasn't the reason they died.
It was a very significant factor combined with rules which prevented
companies from injecting more funds even when they wanted to.
--
bert

In message , Huge
writes
On 2013-02-23, bert ] wrote:

It used to be compulsory with any large company to join the pension
scheme after 1 or 2 years.
But then the twittering classes said that wasn't "fair" and so few opted
in and the schemes have died.

Utter crap.


Ooh what an intelligent contribution
--
bert

In message , Andy Champ
writes
On 23/02/2013 00:13, bert wrote:
It used to be compulsory with any large company to join the pension
scheme after 1 or 2 years.
But then the twittering classes said that wasn't "fair" and so few opted
in and the schemes have died.

That's not why the schemes have died.

People tended not to die so soon, so costs went up. Then we went
through a phase where the returns on the investments were really good,
and companies realised it was cheaper to pension off their older staff
rather than make people redundant (cost to pension fund, not to
company, and it was overfunded so WTH). Then the returns went back to
normal leaving funds underfunded... so Blair and Brown came along and
made a "minor change" (about 5 billion a year) to the way pension funds
were taxed, and suddenly they were unaffordable.

Yes another contributing factor. At the same time they also raided the
NI pension contributions as I have explained in a previous post.
Except to those paid by the taxpayer, not private sector companies.

Andy
I don't see why the state should pay more in pension to its own
employees than to the other pensioners.
--
bert

In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
On 23/02/2013 00:13, bert wrote:
It used to be compulsory with any large company to join the pension
scheme after 1 or 2 years.
But then the twittering classes said that wasn't "fair" and so few opted
in and the schemes have died.

That's not why the schemes have died.

People tended not to die so soon, so costs went up. Then we went
through a phase where the returns on the investments were really good,
and companies realised it was cheaper to pension off their older staff
rather than make people redundant (cost to pension fund, not to company,
and it was overfunded so WTH). Then the returns went back to normal
leaving funds underfunded... so Blair and Brown came along and made a
"minor change" (about 5 billion a year) to the way pension funds
were taxed, and suddenly they were unaffordable.

And, of course, most companies were just looking for any excuse to lose
this cost to them.

--
*Real men don't waste their hormones growing hair

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
bert ] wrote:
I don't see why the state should pay more in pension to its own
employees than to the other pensioners.

'State' employees can have a pension as part of their remuneration
package. So no different to anyone else.

The OAP is a different thing entirely.

--
*If all is not lost, where the hell is it?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes


"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Mark
writes
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:40:47 +0000, Broadback
wrote:

On 20/02/2013 23:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Just to come vaguely back onto group topic, pensioners have to hire
people to do more jobs for them which younger people can DIY

That may be the case at some point, but you don't automatically
become
decrepit the second you get an OAP.

As an OAP I find it odd that as, on average, high savings accounts,we
are penalised by inflation eating the value away

Inflation affects everyone. Many working people have had little or no
pay rises (and some have had pay cuts) over the last few years.

while interest rates
are kept low so that the provenders can have it relatively easy. Who is
subsidising whom?

The poor subsidise the rich. Borrowers always pay higher interest
rates than savers get.

Anyway low interest rates are essential in preventing the financial
crisis being much worse.

But the law of diminishing returns applies.

Sure, and once you get to zero, you have a problem.

Businesses always moan about interest rates

And the economy clearly isnt doing as well as it has done.

That depends on hope you measure it.

Nope, that's the result you get with any sensible measure.

GDP does not take into account debt so as Labour did (and will do again if
given the chance) you can make it appear that the economy is doing well by
borrowing more and artificially inflating GDP

It wasn't the debt that inflated the GDP.

Govt spending is only a quite small part of total
GDP, whatever govts would have you believe.

And with non govt debt, the borrowings by business
that is useful for the economy obviously cost much
less when the interest they have to pay on that debt
is much lower.

just as farmers always complain about the weather.

The one financial institution which isn't restricting its lending hand
has been unaffected by any crisis has very high interest rates - the
credit card companies.

They are restricting their lending in some jurisdictions.

In this instance we are talking about the UK and I personally have seen no
evidence of any tightening of restrictions on lending.

Then you need to get out more, most obviously with those who
are now out a job and who now find it much harder to get a new
credit card with a decent credit limit on it.

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes


"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Yehbut, if you've organised things properly, you should have paid off
your mortgage, kids off your hands etc by the time you retire. And no
more of the often considerable expense of getting to work and
subsistance there.


No you stay at home and have to heat your house all day - and you
still
have to eat.

The extra cost of heating the house all day is pretty small compared to
a
mortgage - or the cost of bringing up kids.
And are you really saying it costs you the same to eat at home as eating
out?

It is more difficult for many to get to supermarkets and so
shopping is more expensive.

Maybe. There aren't really any corner shops round here so it's just as
easy to go to a supermarket. Or have things delivered from one each
week?

Funny, no-one was commenting about pensioners when things were going
well and they were only getting increases at inflation whereas wages
were increasing more rapidly

Well, when I started work many years ago, the hope was near everyone
would
be in some form of pension scheme as well as the state one. But it's now
far more important that the rich get even richer.

It used to be compulsory with any large company to join the pension
scheme after 1 or 2 years.
But then the twittering classes said that wasn't "fair" and so few opted
in and the schemes have died.

That wasn't the reason they died.

It was a very significant factor

Nope, the main factor was in fact the demise of the traditional
pension schemes which offered a percentage of the final salary
as a pension, adjusted for inflation over time in retirement.

combined with rules which prevented companies from injecting more funds
even when they wanted to.

That was an even less significant factor.

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Andy Champ
writes
On 23/02/2013 00:13, bert wrote:
It used to be compulsory with any large company to join the pension
scheme after 1 or 2 years.
But then the twittering classes said that wasn't "fair" and so few opted
in and the schemes have died.

That's not why the schemes have died.

People tended not to die so soon, so costs went up. Then we went through
a phase where the returns on the investments were really good, and
companies realised it was cheaper to pension off their older staff rather
than make people redundant (cost to pension fund, not to company, and it
was overfunded so WTH). Then the returns went back to normal leaving funds
underfunded... so Blair and Brown came along and made a "minor change"
(about 5 billion a year) to the way pension funds
were taxed, and suddenly they were unaffordable.

Yes another contributing factor. At the same time they also raided the NI
pension contributions as I have explained in a previous post.
Except to those paid by the taxpayer, not private sector companies.

Andy
I don't see why the state should pay more in pension to its own employees
than to the other pensioners.

Essentially because many of their employees were professionals
at the time they were employed. The OAP was never intended to
be more than a safetynet for those who did not have pensions
that were the consequence of their employment.

On Feb 23, 11:38*pm, bert ] wrote:
In message , Andy Champ
writes







On 23/02/2013 00:13, bert wrote:
It used to be compulsory with any large company to join the pension
scheme after 1 or 2 years.
But then the twittering classes said that wasn't "fair" and so few opted
in and the schemes have died.

That's not why the schemes have died.

People tended not to die so soon, so costs went up. *Then we went
through a phase where the returns on the investments were really good,
and companies realised it was cheaper to pension off their older staff
rather than make people redundant (cost to pension fund, not to
company, and it was overfunded so WTH). Then the returns went back to
normal leaving funds underfunded... so Blair and Brown came along and
made a "minor change" (about 5 billion a year) to the way pension funds
were taxed, and suddenly they were unaffordable.

Yes another contributing factor. At the same time they also raided the
NI pension contributions as I have explained in a previous post.Except to those paid by the taxpayer, not private sector companies.

Andy

I don't see why the state should pay more in pension to its own
employees than to the other pensioners.
--
bert

They are not paid by the taxpayer. Money was deducted from wages.
However, instead of investing it, they spent it.

On 24/02/2013 07:29, harry wrote:
The problem will be fixed when it becomes illegal for governments to
run any form of deficite.

oink flap oink flap...

Andy

In message , Rod Speed
writes
Govt spending is only a quite small part of total
GDP, whatever govts would have you believe.
Over 50% in the UK
--
bert

In message , Rod Speed
writes


"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes


"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Yehbut, if you've organised things properly, you should have paid off
your mortgage, kids off your hands etc by the time you retire. And no
more of the often considerable expense of getting to work and
subsistance there.


No you stay at home and have to heat your house all day - and you
still
have to eat.

The extra cost of heating the house all day is pretty small
compared to a
mortgage - or the cost of bringing up kids.
And are you really saying it costs you the same to eat at home as eating
out?

It is more difficult for many to get to supermarkets and so
shopping is more expensive.

Maybe. There aren't really any corner shops round here so it's just as
easy to go to a supermarket. Or have things delivered from one each
week?

Funny, no-one was commenting about pensioners when things were going
well and they were only getting increases at inflation whereas wages
were increasing more rapidly

Well, when I started work many years ago, the hope was near
everyone would
be in some form of pension scheme as well as the state one. But it's now
far more important that the rich get even richer.

It used to be compulsory with any large company to join the pension
scheme after 1 or 2 years.
But then the twittering classes said that wasn't "fair" and so few
opted in and the schemes have died.

That wasn't the reason they died.

It was a very significant factor

Nope, the main factor was in fact the demise of the traditional
pension schemes which offered a percentage of the final salary
as a pension, adjusted for inflation over time in retirement.

combined with rules which prevented companies from injecting more
funds even when they wanted to.

That was an even less significant factor.

As you are in Oz it's not surprising you know **** all about the history
if UK pension schemes.
--
bert

bert ] wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Govt spending is only a quite small part of total
GDP, whatever govts would have you believe.

Over 50% in the UK

Bull****
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/numbers?units=p

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes


"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes


"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Yehbut, if you've organised things properly, you should have paid
off
your mortgage, kids off your hands etc by the time you retire. And
no
more of the often considerable expense of getting to work and
subsistance there.


No you stay at home and have to heat your house all day - and you
still
have to eat.

The extra cost of heating the house all day is pretty small compared
to a
mortgage - or the cost of bringing up kids.
And are you really saying it costs you the same to eat at home as
eating
out?

It is more difficult for many to get to supermarkets and so
shopping is more expensive.

Maybe. There aren't really any corner shops round here so it's just as
easy to go to a supermarket. Or have things delivered from one each
week?

Funny, no-one was commenting about pensioners when things were going
well and they were only getting increases at inflation whereas wages
were increasing more rapidly

Well, when I started work many years ago, the hope was near everyone
would
be in some form of pension scheme as well as the state one. But it's
now
far more important that the rich get even richer.

It used to be compulsory with any large company to join the pension
scheme after 1 or 2 years.
But then the twittering classes said that wasn't "fair" and so few
opted in and the schemes have died.

That wasn't the reason they died.

It was a very significant factor

Nope, the main factor was in fact the demise of the traditional
pension schemes which offered a percentage of the final salary
as a pension, adjusted for inflation over time in retirement.

combined with rules which prevented companies from injecting more funds
even when they wanted to.

That was an even less significant factor.

As you are in Oz it's not surprising you know **** all about the history
if UK pension schemes.

Even someone as stupid as you can use the net to
check what happens outside that frigid soggy little island.

On Feb 25, 11:50*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:


As you are in Oz it's not surprising you know **** all about the history
if UK pension schemes.

Even someone as stupid as you can use the net to
check what happens outside that frigid soggy little island.

So you admit you know f**k all about what happens inside it.

MBQ