Pensions Worth 30% Less Than Three Years Ago

Old_Slaphead

Batchy wrote: »

With no pensions, annuities will go up, rather than down, and you will get more value for money in your pension.

How does that work then ?

Pimperne1

Okay Hamish. Enough of that. This thread dropped on to the second page even quicker than geneer could have wished (notice he's gone sulking off anyway).

Here's a line he posted elsewhere today:

"Had house prices crashed 2004/2005, we would have been much better off now".

Well, you certainly would have mate.

geneer

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Okay Hamish. Enough of that. This thread dropped on to the second page even quicker than geneer could have wished (notice he's gone sulking off anyway).

Here's a line he posted elsewhere today:

"Had house prices crashed 2004/2005, we would have been much better off now".

Well, you certainly would have mate.

Actually what I posted was...

Would the economy (and so the majority of UK residents) be better if house prices had crashed in 2004/2005?

You don't appear to have any opinion on that one pimp.
Or at least no opinion you want to share. :rotfl:

Think I will bump the thread.
Worth it to further expose one of the most glaring intellectual failures in the Bulls deliberately restricted view of the economy.

Pimperne1

Here's what you posted, I'll let others decide who was correct:

http://www.creditcrunch.co.uk/forum/topic/10414-guardian-will-uk-property-prices-weather-a-new-recession/page__p__165141__hl__geneer__fromsearch__1#entry165141

Post 12.

IveSeenTheLight

Pimperne1 wrote: »

Here's what you posted, I'll let other decide who was correct:

http://www.creditcrunch.co.uk/forum/topic/10414-guardian-will-uk-property-prices-weather-a-new-recession/page__p__165141__hl__geneer__fromsearch__1#entry165141

Post 12.

I shouldn't have needed to check, but once again geneer is and has been demonstrated to be wrong.
He can't even quote himself correctly, let alone get what others say as correct.

P.S. to be fair, geneers re-attempt to structure his sentence does make better sense.
Even a correction now back to 2004 / 2005 levels wouldn't make him better off though

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I shouldn't have needed to check, but once again geneer is and has been demonstrated to be wrong.
He can't even quote himself correctly, let alone get what others say as correct.

Actually Lite I was refering to my question in another thread on this site. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=47570131&postcount=1
So it appears that I can indeed quote myself correctly.
Which would mean its just been demonstrated that you're wrong. Again.

Naturally, both you and pimperne1 aren't interesting in turning a molehill into a mountain, so you won't be inclinded to bang on and on and on about a minor issue at tedious and pointless length.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

P.S. to be fair, geneers re-attempt to structure his sentence does make better sense.

Sorry lite. No attempt at restructuring. You are wrong.
One is a question, directed at posters on this forum.
One is a statment, made on another forum, clarifying my position on the subject.
A position which has also been made clear on this forum.

Apparently this has proven to be controvesial and worthy of comment.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Even a correction now back to 2004 / 2005 levels wouldn't make him better off though

Your going to have to Justify that one lite, because any way I look at it, you appear to be talking rubbish.

Still nice angle. Its that kind of originality and inventive thinking which keeps things fresh. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

robmatic

Yeah guys, we're going off topic here. Geneer has demonstrated that property has been a better investment choice than equity based pensions over the last few years, and it's an important point that he's making.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

Actually Lite I was refering to my question in another thread on this site. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=47570131&postcount=1
So it appears that I can indeed quote myself correctly.
Which would mean its just been demonstrated that you're wrong. Again.

My My, is this a first that geneer has been able to back up his statement.

It would therefore appear that both have correctly quoted posts by geneer that are very similar but slightly different.

geneer wrote: »

Your going to have to Justify that one lite, because any way I look at it, you appear to be talking rubbish.

It's quite simple, if you've been renting since 2005, even a correction back to that level wouldn't counter the 6 years rent, thus you would still be financially worse off.

Not that it matters much.

Have a nice day

Pimperne1

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

My My, is this a first that geneer has been able to back up his statement.

It would therefore appear that both have correctly quoted posts by geneer that are very similar but slightly different.



It's quite simple, if you've been renting since 2005, even a correction back to that level wouldn't counter the 6 years rent, thus you would still be financially worse off.

Not that it matters much.

Have a nice day

Renting since 2005? More likely to have been renting since he was 18 which would be more like 1991 (and if he had bought then the average house would have cost between £50k and £55k).

Batchy

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

How does that work then ?

Because without pensions people live less, and annuities will be worth more...