Young man need's advice

ViolaLass

YoungGuy wrote: »

That's why I was going to reinvest what ever profit I made into some carefully chosen ftse 100 companies or oil futures. I refuse to wait until I'm old just to have a decent quality of life. My dreams are not shattered because there are tons of internet marketers/entrepreneurs that are making money as we speak without even needing to leave their house. It's called the "internet age" where its possible to generate an income stream with just a computer and broadband.

And yet some people here are acting like we are stuck in the 60's where the only means of making money is by hard labor or working a dead end 9-5. Now I'm not saying anything is wrong with that, it's just some people are better suited for it than others. I do intend to give back to society later in other ways.

This is an investment forum and I came here expecting investment advice not to be treated like a child and be told go back to school or "get a job". Some people would rather call me a troll than talk about investments and that's fine.

I don't think 10 years is exactly a "get rich quick" though as it's a considerable amount of time.

I'm seeing a lot of words but not much action. Have you started doing some research into the companies you might invest in?

castle96

"I do intend to give back to society later in other ways."

Go on, tell us how ?? Do charitable work ? Donate your body ?
I would like my share as cash please

Eco_Miser

YoungGuy wrote: »

And yet some people here are acting like we are stuck in the 60's where the only means of making money is by hard labor or working a dead end 9-5.

I remember the 60's - when Peter Stringfellow was running discos, then moved on to night-clubs, when Richard Branson launched a magazine (the records came in 1970), when pirate radio gave the BBC such a shock they re-organised and poached the DJs - all money-making, definitely not 9-5 office jobs. Not sure about the hard labour though.

YoungGuy wrote: »

This is an investment forum and I came here expecting investment advice not to be treated like a child and be told go back to school or "get a job". Some people would rather call me a troll than talk about investments and that's fine.

But you're not talking about investments either - you're talking about speculation and self-employment.

YoungGuy wrote: »

I don't think 10 years is exactly a "get rich quick" though as it's a considerable amount of time.

Not really, not for buying a house on £110 savings per month.

ViolaLass

For more context OP, if you're going to invest £1400 a year and want £200k in 10 years, you need a return of 55% every year.

That's excluding any fees, tax, losses etc.

gadgetmind

Interesting article here regards Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21639438-controversial-trial-mysterious-disease-continues-yield-insights-fear?fsrc=rss|sct

lippy1923

Young man need's advice - I think you should go on the television. I'm sure someone would love to run a programme about you and your dream

Mrs_Z

Just a piece of advice for the Young Guy of what I have learned over the years:

There is no shortcut to success.

TheTracker

Onawingandaprayer wrote: »

Ugly hate is a bit strong. Just the robust views of a few MSE regulars who ... don't feel over-helpful to someone wanting to ... invest their state benefits.

I'm interested to hear whether and how you (and all other "benefits scrounger" respondents) may reconcile this position with the various popular "Pensioner Bonds" threads now running. As far as I can ascertain such bonds are a non means tested state benefit manifested by recipients making investments. Why would it be OK for this new benefit to be provided to pensioners wealthy enough to apply (fund), but yet not OK for a recipient of a disability benefit to save any surplus wisely? In other words is there a moral distinction between being given free money because you invested (pensioners), and allowing benefits to be invested (OP), even if they are perhaps quantitatively similar amounts?

Onawingandaprayer

TheTracker wrote: »

I'm interested to hear whether and how you (and all other "benefits scrounger" respondents) may reconcile this position with the various popular "Pensioner Bonds" threads now running. As far as I can ascertain such bonds are a non means tested state benefit specifically designed to allow investment by recipients. Why would it be OK for this new benefit through investment, but not a disability benefit? Is there a moral distinction between being given free money for investment, and giving money for investing, even if they are quantitatively similar amounts?

Sorry? You'll have to run that by me again.

Onawingandaprayer

At first it sounded like you were equating news items like this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11347454/Mother-and-daughter-weigh-a-total-of-43-stone-and-get-34k-a-year-handouts-but-refuse-to-diet.html

with over 65s being given an opportunity to invest money they have saved in a taxed savings bond. But then I thought, surely not. I must have got the wrong end of the stick. Please clarify.