Pension top up

Pollycat

mgdavid wrote: »

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

Either that or the schools have finished early for Easter. :rotfl:

Much more sensible discussion on this subject over on the Pensions board - without the histrionics provided by zygurat.

scotsbob

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.

The shares that he sold, he bought. Who did he buy them from?

Are you suggesting that because something is in public ownership the public don't own it because the trustees hold the deeds rather than each individual? If so can you direct me to a reference of case law as I have never heard of the concept before.

It's not my analogy which is faulty, it's your logic. You refuse to accept that Royal Mail was owned by us. The government of the day were the trustees.

It is exactly like taking land from me. If I own something jointly or in part then I am a co-owner.

scotsbob

Pollycat wrote: »

Much more sensible discussion on this subject over on the Pensions board

I'm puzzled as to why someone would participate in a discussion which they don't think is sensible.

Seems illogical to me .

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: