Pension top up

scotsbob

Pollycat wrote: »

But yangptangkipperbang made a profit on the transaction.

You own some land worth £1,000. I take it from you parcel it up into 500 lots for a pound each (undervaluing it)

You buy 10 lots for ten pounds and sell them for twenty pounds.

How much profit have you made?

custardy

scotsbob wrote: »

You own some land worth £1,000. I take it from you parcel it up into 500 lots for a pound each (undervaluing it)

You buy 10 lots for ten pounds and sell them for twenty pounds.

How much profit have you made?

Then to finish off,up their bills

Pollycat

scotsbob wrote: »

You own some land worth £1,000. I take it from you parcel it up into 500 lots for a pound each (undervaluing it)

You buy 10 lots for ten pounds and sell them for twenty pounds.

How much profit have you made?

Although Royal Mail nominally belonged to 'us', it's not the same as owning some land - which presumably you would have deeds proving that you owned the land - and someone taking it from you.

So that '£1000' didn't exist as far as pubic ownership goes.

yangptangkipperbang invested an amount of money in Royal Mail shares, say £1000.

He/she sold the shares for £1000 plus say 10%, so got £100 profit on his investment.

Not at all like someone taking your land from you.
Very poor analogy. :cool:

I'm not saying that RM shares weren't under-valued.

zygurat789

Pollycat wrote: »

Although Royal Mail nominally belonged to 'us', it's not the same as owning some land - which presumably you would have deeds proving that you owned the land - and someone taking it from you.

So that '£1000' didn't exist as far as pubic ownership goes.

yangptangkipperbang invested an amount of money in Royal Mail shares, say £1000.

He/she sold the shares for £1000 plus say 10%, so got £100 profit on his investment.

Not at all like someone taking your land from you.
Very poor analogy. :cool:

I'm not saying that RM shares weren't under-valued.

So yangptangkipperbang invested £1000 in something which didn't exist and made a profit on it? Isn't capitalism wonderful.

Pollycat

zygurat789 wrote: »

So yangptangkipperbang invested £1000 in something which didn't exist and made a profit on it? Isn't capitalism wonderful.

I'm not saying capitalisation is wonderful. :rotfl:

I was pointing out to scotsbob that yangptangkipperbang had invested in something that was legal - you don't have to like it or agree with it - and made a profit.

It was his choice and a choice that anyone with available capital could have made.

My comment about £1000 not existing meant that yangptangkipperbang did not actually have anything that proved he owned £1000 (or any amount) in Royal Mail (like he would have if he owned land).

Therefore - as I've pointed out already - scotsbob's 'land' analogy is like comparing apples and elephants.

And while we at it, you are wrong here:

zygurat789 wrote: »

You weren't you were doing the ripping

yangptangkipperbang did not rip anyone off.
He made a legal financial investment. And made a profit.

zygurat789

Pollycat wrote: »

yangptangkipperbang did not rip anyone off.
He made a legal financial investment. And made a profit.

Agreed this is exactly what happened and in the process yangptangkipperbang ripped off the taxpayers of this country.

Pollycat

zygurat789 wrote: »

Agreed this is exactly what happened and in the process yangptangkipperbang ripped off the taxpayers of this country.

Don't be so ridiculously over-dramatic (and incorrect). :rotfl:

I think you really need to find a dictionary and look up the definition of 'rip-off'.

You seem to be having tremendous difficulty in understanding the difference between a legal transaction and a rip-off.
However, as someone who thinks the Post Office was sold off, that doesn't surprise me that much.

zygurat789 wrote: »

Now we know who is going to pay for selling the Post Office off so cheaply
Once again it is the pensioners who are being ripped off.

Maybe you should also check up what was actually privatised.

You are clearly incensed about this privatisation (Jealous that you couldn't afford to take advantage of it, by any chance?) but at least have the common sense to blame the people who undervalued RM - not the people who made a legal transaction.
Exactly the same as all those people who bought shares in previously similar privatisations.

yangptangkipperbang did not rip off the taxpayers of this country.
And neither did anyone else who bought shares.

zygurat789

Pollycat wrote: »

Don't be so ridiculously over-dramatic (and incorrect). :rotfl:

I think you really need to find a dictionary and look up the definition of 'rip-off'.

You seem to be having tremendous difficulty in understanding the difference between a legal transaction and a rip-off.
However, as someone who thinks the Post Office was sold off, that doesn't surprise me that much.



Maybe you should also check up what was actually privatised.

You are clearly incensed about this privatisation (Jealous that you couldn't afford to take advantage of it, by any chance?) but at least have the common sense to blame the people who undervalued RM - not the people who made a legal transaction.
Exactly the same as all those people who bought shares in previously similar privatisations.

yangptangkipperbang did not rip off the taxpayers of this country.
And neither did anyone else who bought shares.

You justify legalised theft however you like, come the revolution I'll just line you all up against the wall

Pollycat

zygurat789 wrote: »

You justify legalised theft however you like, come the revolution I'll just line you all up against the wall

OMG!

I just can't get in enough of these :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

to show my reaction to your post above.

You must really start to use smilies to show you are joking because you really did have me believing that you really thought that yangptangkipperbang had ripped pensioners off by buying shares in Royal Mail.
I suggest you use this one as an indication you are not serious.

I had to check the date to see if it was April Fool's Day.

mgdavid

zygurat789 wrote: »

You justify legalised theft however you like, come the revolution I'll just line you all up against the wall

is this the result of Care in the community by any chance?