stupid beliefs about finance

kidmugsy

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

however, shares and property are the only 2 plausible candidates for the best asset class for the long term.

There are those who say that the weight of gold that would have bought you a jolly nice toga in Roman times would buy you a fine business suit today.

oldvicar

Myth: Pensioners don't pay tax.

More sophisticated versions of the above myth:

i) The state pension is tax free

ii) Tax is not deducted from my pension, therefore I am a non-taxpayer, therefore I can fill in an R85 to register interest on my £millions of savings to be paid gross/tax-free.

oldvicar

Of fixed term deposit accounts: It's my money, so I am entitled to have it back whenever I want.

oldvicar

Deposits up to £85K are completely risk free because they are Guaranteed by the government.

oldvicar

People receiving Tax Credits are not on Benefits.

laurel7172

If your payslip shows £X per month deducted for your pension, that's how much it's costing you.

JoeCrystal

oldvicar wrote: »

Myth: Pensioners don't pay tax.

Well, some students believe they do not pay taxes as well.

oldvicar wrote: »

People receiving Tax Credits are not on Benefits.

I actually heard that! Likewise with State Pension. I remember watching a elderly lady was asked for her view on what should be done with benefits. Her answer was to get rid of all these benefits and everyone should provide for themselves. Needlessly to say, when she was asked about her state pension as it is a benefit. She immediately said that it is not a benefit but a just reward for all their hard works and they really need it.

laurel7172 wrote: »

If your payslip shows £X per month deducted for your pension, that's how much it's costing you.

Do you mean people think it cost them £100 to pay into pension when in fact it cost £80?

Cheers

Joe

grey_gym_sock

kidmugsy wrote: »

There are those who say that the weight of gold that would have bought you a jolly nice toga in Roman times would buy you a fine business suit today.

if that's right, and what once bought a decent quality (not luxurious) outfit would now buy a decent quality (not luxurious) outfit, then that's a real total return of c. 0% over 2000 years. which is very close to 0% per year.

let's suppose shares have a real total return of 3% per year. (that's supposed to be a cautious figure - some might say 5%.) after 2000 years, that would give you ... 1.03 ^ 2000 = 47,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the sum you started with ... what does that tell you?

oldvicar

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

if that's right, and what once bought a decent quality (not luxurious) outfit would now buy a decent quality (not luxurious) outfit, then that's a real total return of c. 0% over 2000 years. which is very close to 0% per year.

let's suppose shares have a real total return of 3% per year. (that's supposed to be a cautious figure - some might say 5%.) after 2000 years, that would give you ... 1.03 ^ 2000 = 47,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the sum you started with ... what does that tell you?

It tells me:

a) I wish shares had been invented 2000 years ago. Dammit there weren't even coffee houses
b) I wish I had been around to invest my gold then

RRRRodgA

Lokolo wrote: »

When you get interest, it is based on the average amount over the course of the period, not on the ending balance! (regular savers take note!).

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN! :rotfl: