Huge writes:

On 2013-03-19, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:25:01 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

In article , Jethro_uk
writes

Of course those children you object to subsidising might say in the
future "why should we pay for that old ****ers pensions ....."

Paying for my own pension, thanks, not relying on the state to provide
anything for me.

With all due respect, the idea that any of us "pays our way" is a fiction.

If none of us pay our way, who's paying for everything?

No one. That's what this whole 'debt' thing you may have heard about
is.

--
Swish - Easy SFTP for Windows Explorer (http://www.swish-sftp.org)

On 20 Mar, 10:57, Huge wrote:
On 2013-03-20, Alexander Lamaison wrote:









Huge writes:

On 2013-03-19, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:25:01 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

In article , Jethro_uk
writes

Of course those children you object to subsidising might say in the
future "why should we pay for that old ****ers pensions ....."

Paying for my own pension, thanks, not relying on the state to provide
anything for me.

With all due respect, the idea that any of us "pays our way" is a fiction.

If none of us pay our way, who's paying for everything?

No one. *That's what this whole 'debt' thing you may have heard about
is.

I think you'll find that some of us most definitely *are* paying our way.
According to the IFS's calculator, our household pays some £27K per annum
more than we get out.

Do you have a link to that? Googling "IFS calculator" seems to lead to
a diffrent calculator, telling you where you fit into the UK income
range.

MBQ

On 20 Mar, 12:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:57:08 +0000, Huge wrote:
On 2013-03-20, Alexander Lamaison wrote:
Huge writes:

On 2013-03-19, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:25:01 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

In article , Jethro_uk
writes

Of course those children you object to subsidising might say in the
future "why should we pay for that old ****ers pensions ....."

Paying for my own pension, thanks, not relying on the state to
provide anything for me.

With all due respect, the idea that any of us "pays our way" is a
fiction.

If none of us pay our way, who's paying for everything?

No one. *That's what this whole 'debt' thing you may have heard about
is.

I think you'll find that some of us most definitely *are* paying our
way. According to the IFS's calculator, our household pays some £27K per
annum more than we get out.

One view of the current economic situation might be that successive
generations have *over the course of their lives* taken more than they
have given.

A more accurate view might be that *some members* of successive
generations have taken more have given.

It's meaningless to point to a snapshot in time as if it
means anything.

Just as meaningles to try to deny that some individuals undoubtedly do
pay their own way. I class myself as one of them.

MBQ

On 20/03/2013 10:17, Huge wrote:
On 2013-03-19, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Huge
writes

The LibLabCons are indistinguishable these days.

Yep. UKIP next time for me. Farage is a loony but entertaining, might
as well see if he can live up to his promises.

In the news this morning - govt to "help with the cost of childcare" to
the tune of 1200 quid. Why the **** should I as a childless taxpayer
contribute to that? If people can't afford children, they shouldn't
breed.

Hear, hear.



Says the man who got educated out of other peoples taxes.

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:18:54 PM UTC, dennis@home wrote:
On 20/03/2013 10:17, Huge wrote:

On 2013-03-19, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

In article , Huge

writes



The LibLabCons are indistinguishable these days.



Yep. UKIP next time for me. Farage is a loony but entertaining, might

as well see if he can live up to his promises.



In the news this morning - govt to "help with the cost of childcare" to

the tune of 1200 quid. Why the **** should I as a childless taxpayer

contribute to that? If people can't afford children, they shouldn't

breed.



Hear, hear.







Says the man who got educated out of other peoples taxes.

In theory my parents paid the money for my schooling and health care.
If I had kids I assume I'd be paying for theirs but as I don;t I assume I'm paying for someone else's or perhaps the money is going out of the country as a friend of mine who has kids in portugal sent his wages and allowancies to his misses in Lisbon, he shares a flate with 3-5 other people sharing two rooms.

On Mar 20, 1:56*pm, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 06:04:36 -0700, Man at B&Q wrote:
On 20 Mar, 12:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:57:08 +0000, Huge wrote:
On 2013-03-20, Alexander Lamaison wrote:
Huge writes:

On 2013-03-19, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:25:01 +0000, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

In article , Jethro_uk
writes

Of course those children you object to subsidising might say in
the future "why should we pay for that old ****ers pensions
....."

Paying for my own pension, thanks, not relying on the state to
provide anything for me.

With all due respect, the idea that any of us "pays our way" is a
fiction.

If none of us pay our way, who's paying for everything?

No one. *That's what this whole 'debt' thing you may have heard
about is.

I think you'll find that some of us most definitely *are* paying our
way. According to the IFS's calculator, our household pays some £27K
per annum more than we get out.

One view of the current economic situation might be that successive
generations have *over the course of their lives* taken more than they
have given.

A more accurate view might be that *some members* of successive
generations have taken more have given.

Not really. If that were the case, then the economy wouldn't be where it
is.

I said *some*. Obviously ther are outweighed by those who do not pay
their way. Your asertion perhaps holds for society as whole.

It's meaningless to point to a snapshot in time as if it means
anything.

Just as meaningles to try to deny that some individuals undoubtedly do
pay their own way. I class myself as one of them.

For now. We'll come back to you aged 100, and see if that's still true.

Given the amount that the state now requires you to pay *for your own*
old age care, there is a very good chance it will still be true.

MBQ

On Mar 18, 11:12*pm, Owain wrote:
On Mar 18, 2:34*pm, harry wrote:

I wonder if our gov.will ever get round to the idea of taking 10% out
of everyone's bank account?

They already have. It's called inflation and quantititititive easing.

Owain

Saw some Cypriot gov official on the box, the new idea to raid pension
funds for the money.

Now where have I heard of that one before?

On Wednesday 20 March 2013 17:02 harry wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On Mar 18, 11:12 pm, Owain wrote:
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, harry wrote:

I wonder if our gov.will ever get round to the idea of taking 10% out
of everyone's bank account?

They already have. It's called inflation and quantititititive easing.

Owain

Saw some Cypriot gov official on the box, the new idea to raid pension
funds for the money.

Now where have I heard of that one before?

Didn't the last bloke to do that overtly fall off a boat and drown?

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 20/03/2013 19:01, Tim Watts wrote:
On Wednesday 20 March 2013 17:02 harry wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On Mar 18, 11:12 pm, Owain wrote:
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, harry wrote:

I wonder if our gov.will ever get round to the idea of taking 10% out
of everyone's bank account?

They already have. It's called inflation and quantititititive easing.

Owain

Saw some Cypriot gov official on the box, the new idea to raid pension
funds for the money.

Now where have I heard of that one before?

Didn't the last bloke to do that overtly fall off a boat and drown?


When did Blair do that?

In message m,
"dennis@home" writes
On 20/03/2013 10:17, Huge wrote:
On 2013-03-19, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
In article , Huge
writes

The LibLabCons are indistinguishable these days.

Yep. UKIP next time for me. Farage is a loony but entertaining, might
as well see if he can live up to his promises.

In the news this morning - govt to "help with the cost of childcare" to
the tune of 1200 quid. Why the **** should I as a childless taxpayer
contribute to that? If people can't afford children, they shouldn't
breed.

Hear, hear.



Says the man who got educated out of other peoples taxes.
When the basic rate of income tax was something like 32p.
--
bert

On Mar 20, 10:14*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 20/03/2013 19:01, Tim Watts wrote:









On Wednesday 20 March 2013 17:02 harry wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On Mar 18, 11:12 pm, Owain wrote:
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, harry wrote:

I wonder if our gov.will ever get round to the idea of taking 10% out
of everyone's bank account?

They already have. It's called inflation and quantititititive easing.

Owain

Saw some Cypriot gov official on the box, the new idea to raid pension
funds for the money.

Now where have I heard of that one before?

Didn't the last bloke to do that overtly fall off a boat and drown?

When did Blair do that?

He means Maxwell. Though he wasn't the last one.

On Mar 20, 10:14*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 20/03/2013 19:01, Tim Watts wrote:









On Wednesday 20 March 2013 17:02 harry wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On Mar 18, 11:12 pm, Owain wrote:
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, harry wrote:

I wonder if our gov.will ever get round to the idea of taking 10% out
of everyone's bank account?

They already have. It's called inflation and quantititititive easing.

Owain

Saw some Cypriot gov official on the box, the new idea to raid pension
funds for the money.

Now where have I heard of that one before?

Didn't the last bloke to do that overtly fall off a boat and drown?

When did Blair do that?

He didn't, nor did his sidekick Brown.

MBQ

On 21/03/13 08:34, harry wrote:
On Mar 20, 10:14 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 20/03/2013 19:01, Tim Watts wrote:









On Wednesday 20 March 2013 17:02 harry wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On Mar 18, 11:12 pm, Owain wrote:
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, harry wrote:

I wonder if our gov.will ever get round to the idea of taking 10% out
of everyone's bank account?

They already have. It's called inflation and quantititititive easing.

Owain

Saw some Cypriot gov official on the box, the new idea to raid pension
funds for the money.

Now where have I heard of that one before?

Didn't the last bloke to do that overtly fall off a boat and drown?

When did Blair do that?

He means Maxwell. Though he wasn't the last one.

No, you are.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Harry wrote :
I wonder if our gov.will ever get round to the idea of taking 10% out
of everyone's bank account?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92G03I20130317

If you reckon that it would be reasonable to get 5% interest on your
savings and instead you're getting 0.05% or somesuch silly rate, you'll
be 10% down after a couple of years.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On 20 Mar 2013 10:18:23 GMT Huge wrote :
If none of us pay our way, who's paying for everything?

We pile up assets in the hope that down the line the next
generation or two will take them off our hands in exchange
for some of what they produce. If they don't we'll starve.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On Mar 21, 9:23*am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
*"Man at B&Q" wrote:









On Mar 20, 10:14*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 20/03/2013 19:01, Tim Watts wrote:

On Wednesday 20 March 2013 17:02 harry wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On Mar 18, 11:12 pm, Owain wrote:
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, harry wrote:

I wonder if our gov.will ever get round to the idea of taking 10% out
of everyone's bank account?

They already have. It's called inflation and quantititititive easing.

Owain

Saw some Cypriot gov official on the box, the new idea to raid pension
funds for the money.

Now where have I heard of that one before?

Didn't the last bloke to do that overtly fall off a boat and drown?

When did Blair do that?

He didn't, nor did his sidekick Brown.

What, drown? Unfortunately you are right. But Brown did do a raid on UK
pension funds.

He did not raid any funds. He altered the taxation of the returns of
those funds.

MBQ

In message
, at
05:32:55 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013, Man at B&Q
remarked:
But Brown did do a raid on UK pension funds.

He did not raid any funds. He altered the taxation of the returns of
those funds.

But the funds were predicted to grow as a result of those "returns"
(which most people expect from 'investments') and the raid reduced the
net returns (increasing the treasury's take) and hence tore up any
earlier predictions about the final worth of these investments.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:07:48 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

make a fortune at everyone else's expense.

Just like FIT payments


--

On Mar 21, 12:53*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
05:32:55 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013, Man at B&Q
remarked:

But Brown did do a raid on UK *pension funds.

He did not raid any funds. He altered the taxation of the returns of
those funds.

But the funds were predicted to grow as a result of those "returns"
(which most people expect from 'investments') and the raid reduced the
net returns (increasing the treasury's take) and hence tore up any
earlier predictions about the final worth of these investments.

It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

Maybe I was lucky, I had good advice from the company pension scheme
trustees about what it really meant, and acted accordingly.

MBQ

In message
, at
07:53:05 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013, Man at B&Q
remarked:
But Brown did do a raid on UK *pension funds.

He did not raid any funds. He altered the taxation of the returns of
those funds.

But the funds were predicted to grow as a result of those "returns"
(which most people expect from 'investments') and the raid reduced the
net returns (increasing the treasury's take) and hence tore up any
earlier predictions about the final worth of these investments.

It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

Dividends are an important contributor to the growth in pension fund
value, especially for the sort of shares that big pension companies
"invest" in.
--
Roland Perry

In message
, Man
at B&Q writes
On Mar 20, 10:14*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 20/03/2013 19:01, Tim Watts wrote:









On Wednesday 20 March 2013 17:02 harry wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On Mar 18, 11:12 pm, Owain wrote:
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, harry wrote:

I wonder if our gov.will ever get round to the idea of taking 10% out
of everyone's bank account?

They already have. It's called inflation and quantititititive easing.

Owain

Saw some Cypriot gov official on the box, the new idea to raid pension
funds for the money.

Now where have I heard of that one before?

Didn't the last bloke to do that overtly fall off a boat and drown?

When did Blair do that?

He didn't, nor did his sidekick Brown.

MBQ
Do you mean fall off a boat (they didn't) or raid pension funds (they
did, both private and public)
--
bert

In message
, Man
at B&Q writes
On Mar 21, 9:23*am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
*"Man at B&Q" wrote:









On Mar 20, 10:14*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 20/03/2013 19:01, Tim Watts wrote:

On Wednesday 20 March 2013 17:02 harry wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On Mar 18, 11:12 pm, Owain wrote:
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, harry wrote:

I wonder if our gov.will ever get round to the idea of
taking 10% out
of everyone's bank account?

They already have. It's called inflation and quantititititive easing.

Owain

Saw some Cypriot gov official on the box, the new idea to raid pension
funds for the money.

Now where have I heard of that one before?

Didn't the last bloke to do that overtly fall off a boat and drown?

When did Blair do that?

He didn't, nor did his sidekick Brown.

What, drown? Unfortunately you are right. But Brown did do a raid on UK
pension funds.

He did not raid any funds. He altered the taxation of the returns of
those funds.

MBQ

Same difference
--
bert

In message
, Man
at B&Q writes
On Mar 21, 12:53*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
05:32:55 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013, Man at B&Q
remarked:

But Brown did do a raid on UK *pension funds.

He did not raid any funds. He altered the taxation of the returns of
those funds.

But the funds were predicted to grow as a result of those "returns"
(which most people expect from 'investments') and the raid reduced the
net returns (increasing the treasury's take) and hence tore up any
earlier predictions about the final worth of these investments.

It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

But a few % on a year on year basis, so over say 30 years adds up to
quite a bit.
Maybe I was lucky, I had good advice from the company pension scheme
trustees about what it really meant, and acted accordingly.

MBQ


--
bert

In message , Huge
writes
On 2013-03-21, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Harry wrote :
I wonder if our gov.will ever get round to the idea of taking 10% out
of everyone's bank account?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...iament-idUSBRE
92G03I20130317

If you reckon that it would be reasonable to get 5% interest on your
savings and instead you're getting 0.05% or somesuch silly rate, you'll
be 10% down after a couple of years.

QE has reduced the value of (y)our savings by far more than 10%. The only
difference between QE and what the Cypriot authorities are doing is that
the latter is more blatant. Either way, the State is stealing your
possessions for its own ends.


It's passing quite a lot of it on to borrowers.
--
bert

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
Huge wrote:

On 2013-03-21, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Harry wrote :
I wonder if our gov.will ever get round to the idea of taking 10% out
of everyone's bank account?


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...t-idUSBRE92G03
I20130317

If you reckon that it would be reasonable to get 5% interest on your
savings and instead you're getting 0.05% or somesuch silly rate, you'll
be 10% down after a couple of years.
QE has reduced the value of (y)our savings by far more than 10%. The
only
difference between QE and what the Cypriot authorities are doing is that
the latter is more blatant. Either way, the State is stealing your
possessions for its own ends.

Actually I'd have said making you pay now for what you've already had
on tick.

I haven't got anything "on tick". Pensioners still pay taxes.
--
bert

On Mar 21, 1:22*pm, The Other Mike
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 00:07:48 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

make a fortune at everyone else's expense.

Just like FIT payments

--

If you owe any money, you are making a fortune at my expense.

On Mar 21, 3:22*pm, bert ] wrote:
In message
, Man
at B&Q writes







On Mar 21, 12:53 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
05:32:55 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013, Man at B&Q
remarked:

But Brown did do a raid on UK pension funds.

He did not raid any funds. He altered the taxation of the returns of
those funds.

But the funds were predicted to grow as a result of those "returns"
(which most people expect from 'investments') and the raid reduced the
net returns (increasing the treasury's take) and hence tore up any
earlier predictions about the final worth of these investments.

It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

But a few % on a year on year basis, so over say 30 years adds up to
quite a bit.

No more than you need to account for and plan for due to other
influences on returns over the same time frame. So not really a big
issue.

MBQ

On Mar 21, 3:21*pm, bert ] wrote:
In message
, Man
at B&Q writes







On Mar 21, 9:23 am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
"Man at B&Q" wrote:

On Mar 20, 10:14 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 20/03/2013 19:01, Tim Watts wrote:

On Wednesday 20 March 2013 17:02 harry wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On Mar 18, 11:12 pm, Owain wrote:
On Mar 18, 2:34 pm, harry wrote:

I wonder if our gov.will ever get round to the idea of
taking 10% out
of everyone's bank account?

They already have. It's called inflation and quantititititive easing.

Owain

Saw some Cypriot gov official on the box, the new idea to raid pension
funds for the money.

Now where have I heard of that one before?

Didn't the last bloke to do that overtly fall off a boat and drown?

When did Blair do that?

He didn't, nor did his sidekick Brown.

What, drown? Unfortunately you are right. But Brown did do a raid on UK
pension funds.

He did not raid any funds. He altered the taxation of the returns of
those funds.

MBQ

Same difference

The funds remained intact. He did not do a Cyprus on them. It's very
different.

MBQ

In message
, Man
at B&Q writes
On Mar 21, 3:22*pm, bert ] wrote:
In message
, Man
at B&Q writes







On Mar 21, 12:53 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
05:32:55 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013, Man at B&Q
remarked:

But Brown did do a raid on UK pension funds.

He did not raid any funds. He altered the taxation of the returns of
those funds.

But the funds were predicted to grow as a result of those "returns"
(which most people expect from 'investments') and the raid reduced the
net returns (increasing the treasury's take) and hence tore up any
earlier predictions about the final worth of these investments.

It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

But a few % on a year on year basis, so over say 30 years adds up to
quite a bit.

No more than you need to account for and plan for due to other
influences on returns over the same time frame. So not really a big
issue.

MBQ

Whether or not other influences are bigger or smaller is irrelevant.
This is one specific adverse factor caused by a grab on the funds by the
last Labour government as they started running out of cash long before
the credit-induced banking crisis.

--
bert

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article , bert ]
wrote:

In message ,
Tim Streater writes
In article ,
Huge wrote:

On 2013-03-21, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 07:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Harry wrote :
I wonder if our gov.will ever get round to the idea of taking 10% out
of everyone's bank account?




http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...ament-idUSBRE9
2G03
I20130317

If you reckon that it would be reasonable to get 5% interest on your
savings and instead you're getting 0.05% or somesuch silly rate, you'll
be 10% down after a couple of years.
QE has reduced the value of (y)our savings by far more than 10%.
The only
difference between QE and what the Cypriot authorities are doing is that
the latter is more blatant. Either way, the State is stealing your
possessions for its own ends.

Actually I'd have said making you pay now for what you've already
had on tick.

I haven't got anything "on tick". Pensioners still pay taxes.

Perhaps not you personally, but the UK population as a whole.

Oh I totally agree with that general sentiment, both personal and
government debt around £1trillion each in the UK.
--
bert

On 21/03/2013 20:15, bert wrote:

Oh I totally agree with that general sentiment, both personal and
government debt around £1trillion each in the UK.

Speak for yourself! Even with my partner we don't owe a trillion...

--
Rod

On 21/03/2013 14:53, Man at B&Q wrote:
It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

Maybe I was lucky, I had good advice from the company pension scheme
trustees about what it really meant, and acted accordingly.

ISTR it amounted to about 5 billion a year. And it's probably no
coincidence that company pension schemes all seemed to evaporate shortly
afterwards.

Andy

Huge wrote:

QE has reduced the value of (y)our savings by far more than 10%.

But we'll see that back when they re-sell the assets after we're out of
the ****

hollowlaughter

On 21/03/2013 14:53, Man at B&Q wrote:

But the funds were predicted to grow as a result of those "returns"
(which most people expect from 'investments') and the raid reduced the
net returns (increasing the treasury's take) and hence tore up any
earlier predictions about the final worth of these investments.

It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

A few percent compounded over a couple of decades makes a big difference
as anyone with a cse in maths will know.

On Mar 21, 10:17*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 21/03/2013 14:53, Man at B&Q wrote:

But the funds were predicted to grow as a result of those "returns"
(which most people expect from 'investments') and the raid reduced the
net returns (increasing the treasury's take) and hence tore up any
earlier predictions about the final worth of these investments.

It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

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.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 01:46:25 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

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?


--

On Mar 21, 8:11*pm, bert ] wrote:
In message
, Man
at B&Q writes







On Mar 21, 3:22 pm, bert ] wrote:
In message
, Man
at B&Q writes

On Mar 21, 12:53 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
05:32:55 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013, Man at B&Q
remarked:

But Brown did do a raid on UK pension funds.

He did not raid any funds. He altered the taxation of the returns of
those funds.

But the funds were predicted to grow as a result of those "returns"
(which most people expect from 'investments') and the raid reduced the
net returns (increasing the treasury's take) and hence tore up any
earlier predictions about the final worth of these investments.

It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

But a few % on a year on year basis, so over say 30 years adds up to
quite a bit.

No more than you need to account for and plan for due to other
influences on returns over the same time frame. So not really a big
issue.

MBQ

Whether or not other influences are bigger or smaller is irrelevant.

Nope. They're all thing to take account of when reviewing your pension
planning.

This is one specific adverse factor caused by a grab on the funds by the

He didn't grab anything form the funds. He taxed their *future*
growth.

MBQ

On Mar 21, 10:17*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 21/03/2013 14:53, Man at B&Q wrote:

But the funds were predicted to grow as a result of those "returns"
(which most people expect from 'investments') and the raid reduced the
net returns (increasing the treasury's take) and hence tore up any
earlier predictions about the final worth of these investments.

It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

A few percent compounded over a couple of decades makes a big difference
as anyone with a cse in maths will know.

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

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:03:27 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:


Coins are *incredibly* easy to hide in a fashion that no-one, even if they
know what they were looking for, would be able to find them, short of
breaking the house and garden to tiny rubble and putting it through a sieve.

Even if they were in the house or on the property...

And the first rule of actually doing this is to tell no one at the time,
ever, except perhaps one other trusted party, which leaves the robbery with
violence as a bit of a hit or miss affair...

YAJosephConrad'sNostromoAICM5silveringots

Nick

In message
, Man
at B&Q writes
On Mar 21, 8:11*pm, bert ] wrote:
In message
, Man
at B&Q writes







On Mar 21, 3:22 pm, bert ] wrote:
In message
, Man
at B&Q writes

On Mar 21, 12:53 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
05:32:55 on Thu, 21 Mar 2013, Man at B&Q
remarked:

But Brown did do a raid on UK pension funds.

He did not raid any funds. He altered the taxation of the returns of
those funds.

But the funds were predicted to grow as a result of those "returns"
(which most people expect from 'investments') and the raid reduced the
net returns (increasing the treasury's take) and hence tore up any
earlier predictions about the final worth of these investments.

It was a tax on dividends which themselves were only a few % of the
fund.

But a few % on a year on year basis, so over say 30 years adds up to
quite a bit.

No more than you need to account for and plan for due to other
influences on returns over the same time frame. So not really a big
issue.

MBQ

Whether or not other influences are bigger or smaller is irrelevant.

Nope. They're all thing to take account of when reviewing your pension
planning.

And your only option is to put in more money to compensate, so in effect
he has grabbed part of your pot.
This is one specific adverse factor caused by a grab on the funds by the

He didn't grab anything form the funds. He taxed their *future*
growth.

MBQ

Semantics
--
bert