pension rights

[Phone]

All,

 

See, that's the problem with you Brits. When you say "labour" are you talking about a certain aspect of the political system - - or are you talking about folks who are wage earners. I'd hate to have to come over there and teach you proper English. No - wait - not proper English, just English that someone, anyone, can understand.

 

Phone

[Vagabond]

direction.

Referring to the above formulae, derive a circular function that may be used to show inductively that the Tories are the poor man's friend, and that Gordon Brown is the work of the devil. In arriving at your proof, you should state any assumptions you make, although you may make as many as you like (see above).

I'm surprised you think that difficult

 

To save typing, lets call Phone's formula (f)PHONE and dear Gordon's contribution k

 

For all positive values of (f)PHONE and of k

 

(f)PHONE is always greater than (f)PHONE - k

 

Thus k has a bad effect on the pension pot even though it is one order of magnitude less than (f)PHONE

 

ie k = bad

 

Although I have never said any other party has the answer, removal of k from the above equation must be a step in the right direction (pun intended)

 

Therefore (absence of k) = good

 

Mind you, other parties are quite capable of stuffing pension contributors also - I never suggested otherwise - merely pointed out the historical arch-stuffer. and no, don't expect the restoral of six billion per annum any time soon, whoever is in power.

[Vagabond]

. When you say "labour" are you talking about a certain aspect of the political system - - or are you talking about folks who are wage earners.

Can't speak for anyone else Phone, but in my case, the latter

 

The correct name for the political party is "Socialist"

 

....neither socialists nor the trade unions who control them want any truck with the concept of work,

[gozzer]

I have to have a chuckle whenever I read one of these threads, I rarely contribute to them for that reason.

 

Everyone's political leaning/bias guides them to a person/persons who they can then blame for any situation.

I, (being politically to the left of centre), could find plenty of reasons to blame the Thatcher/Reagan era, for most of our present financial/social problems, and of course those that followed, for not changing the systems.

Regardless of what Brown did, or what Thatcher sold off, we now live in a society that is geared to serving the few, at the expense of the many. If you managed to 'work' the system in your favour, then well done. Many however, are/were incapable, (for many reasons), of doing, or having done, the same.

The rampant Capitalism, and consumerism that governs every part of our lives today, is geared towards inequality. The common myth that, "the harder you work, the more you get out of life", is just that, a myth. There always have been those that 'made it', through hard work, and those who did so through good fortune, opportunity, and often a ruthless disregard for others. There have also always been those who work hard, and never 'make it', because it's not in the interests of those at the 'top' , (both politically, and financially), to allow everyone to 'make it'.

No man made philosophy, be it, capitalism, socialism, communism, or any other 'ism you can think off, will ever work, it's not in the 'nature' of man to allow equality, there are always those that want more.

 

John.

[Vagabond]

I, (being politically to the left of centre),

...and I, being politically well to the right of centre, agree with you.

 

Whatever system I found myself under, my first concern (my duty, if you like) was to look after myself and mine. No good blaming a system - you need to get the best out of it you can - on your bike (like Norman Tebbit's dad) if necessary.

 

That said, Brown's antics were more toxic than most - it was the timing of the £6 billion heist that made it so killing.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Vagabond

[Vagabond]

1 To look at your inequality f > f - k, we see that, on rearranging, k < 0,

 

2. which contradicts your initial condition, as well as proving that GB actually put money into pensions,

1 Well of course k is less than nought as far as the pension fund is concerned. - it represents the amount subtracted from the pension funds.

 

I could have designated k as always negative, in which case the equation becomes f > f + k where k is MINUS £6 billion

 

Another way of expressing the same thing.

 

2. No it doesn't. If anything it shows your conception of positive and negative is a bit shaky - better check over that pension fund contract of yours. Pension "expert" shaky on maths ? Sounds bad.

 

Perhaps you missed the irony K = dear Gordon's "contribution" = the amount he removed from the pension pot.

 

Minus six billion quid for the pension pot. Plus six billion quid for Gordon's coffers

 

***************

 

Fishing ? Yes I do plenty of that, funded by an adequate pension. Have a look at some of my past reports.

[corydoras]

Fishing ? Yes I do plenty of that, funded by an adequate pension. Have a look at some of my past reports.

I've heard that you write quite well about it too Dave.

[chesters1]

I think you need to re-read definitely k was a negative influence

[Vagabond]

But but but.... you stipulated k positive.

 

 

That's right, then I put a minus sign in front of it

 

For your guidance,

 

Negative times positive = negative

 

Positive times negative = negative

 

Positive times positive = positive

 

Negative times negative = (brace yourself for this one) positive

 

You realise that if your maths is shaky, then it brings into question your professed expertise on pensions.

 

I have never claimed to be an expert on pensions, merely stated how I corrected the pension providers estimates of my own pensions, and nobody needs expertise to realise that removing £6 billion per annum from a scheme is not exactly going to help it.

 

My pensions battles are long since won. I wish you well with yours, but I have some tackle to prepare for tomorrow, so goodnight.

[chesters1]

Its pointles pointing out the 6 billion in this chaps eyes a negative is a positive

As he also appears to hero worship brown we better had not mention "brown's bottom" or he will insist he BOUGHT gold at its lowest price and helped in that way also

Labour buggered up the balance so quickly the family jewels were being sold within a couple of years of getting the pin number to the vault

He ofcourse got caught with his fingers in that till so immediately found another to rob

Edited September 5, 2013 by chesters1